Appeal No. 2004-0213
Application No. 09/502,818
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 8,
filed February 10, 2003) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 10, filed
July 8, 2003) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 22.
Independent claims 1 and 6 recite that "the search engine
inquires if the link repository contains new link information
about the preliminary result set, and updates the selected
abstracts based on the new link information, if any, to generate
the dynamic search abstracts." Independent claim 11 includes a
similar limitation in method format, with the method steps of
inquiring and of updating the selected abstracts. The
corresponding limitation in independent claim 17 is identical to
that of claim 1 except that instruction codes rather than the
search engine inquire and update the abstracts. Thus, all of the
independent claims require an inquiry as to new link information
about the preliminary result set, and an update to the selected
abstracts based on the new link information.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007