Appeal No.2004-1526
Application No. 09/354,052
search requests and executes the search requests by
searching the mass memory 17 (local database) and data
stored at the Internet server 63 (remote database).
The server system 9 combines the results of remote
searches with results of the search perform (sic,
performed) on data stored in the mass memory 17. The
combined search results are displayed to a user of a
client system 33 within one window (col. 6, lines 56-
67; col. 7, lines 1-10) (answer-pages 4-5).
Appellant argues that the instant claims require that “the
content information corresponds to information from a plurality
of content sources of multiple types” and that this is not taught
by Vora. It is appellant’s contention that the instant claims
“recite different types of sources, not different subjects”
(brief-page 7). Appellant further states that the “present
invention as claimed is not about identifying documents from a
single source, or multiple databases. Rather, it is about
bringing together content from different sources, that in the
past have been associated with different multimedia sources. It
is believed that this is a fundamental difference that is clearly
recited in the claims” (brief-page 8).
It is our view that appellant takes too narrow a view of the
instant claim language.
Independent claim 1 recites a method having two steps. The
first step entails inputting a search criteria. Clearly, Vora
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007