Appeal No. 2004-0213
Application No. 09/502,818
The examiner (Answer, page 4) asserts that Kravets discloses
the above-noted limitation and directs our attention to column
11, lines 33-41, and column 12, lines 6-23. However, the
portions of Kravets referenced by the examiner relate to
modifying search queries, not to link information or updating
abstracts.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 11) that Kravets does not
teach automatically generating dynamic search abstracts, as
recited in the preamble of each independent claim. Further,
Appellant asserts (Brief, page 15) that the above-noted
limitation of inquiring and updating abstracts is absent from
Kravets. We agree. We find nothing in Kravets that suggests
updating abstracts based on new link information, thereby
generating dynamic search abstracts. Kravets teaches methods for
reformulating searches to obtain a reasonable number of matching
results, which is not the same as updating abstracts based on new
link information. We note that the examiner combined Nasr with
Kravets for rejecting the claims. However, the examiner relied
on Nasr for a teaching of an abstract engine, which appellant
(Brief, page 13) admits was known. Nasr adds nothing regarding
the generation of dynamic search abstracts. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 17, nor of their
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007