Appeal No. 2004-0570
Application No. 09/425,532
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13 and 15 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Zellweger in view of Caid. Claims 6 through 8 and
10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Zellweger in view
of Caid and Kisiel. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the brief1 and
the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in
the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 5
through 11, 13, and 15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants assert, on page 12 of the brief, “[i]n Zellweger, ‘indexing’
relates to automatic methods used to provide pointers to text data in the
database, methods common to all search engines, such as the creation of
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on March 5, 2003 (certified as being mailed on
February 28, 2003, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8(a))
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007