Appeal No.2004-1526
Application No. 09/354,052
illustrated by reference to representative independent claim 1,
reproduced as follows:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
inputting a search criteria; and
searching at least one local database of content information
and at least one remote database of content information based
upon the search criteria, wherein the content information
corresponds to information from a plurality of content sources of
multiple types.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Vora et al. (Vora) 5,819,273 Oct. 06, 1998
Contois 5,864,868 Jan. 26, 1999
Etheredge 6,172,674 Jan. 09, 2001
(filed Aug. 25, 1997)
Claims 1-9, 12-21, 24-32, and 35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Vora.1
Claims 10, 22, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Vora in view of Etheredge.
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Vora in view of Contois.
1It is interesting that the examiner included claims 5, 6,
17, 18, 28, and 29 in the statement of rejection because, as we
understand it, these claims have been canceled and form no part
of the appeal.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007