Appeal No.2004-1526
Application No. 09/354,052
reason for making the combination, with no substantive showing by
appellant of any error in this rationale by the examiner, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
With regard to claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19, 20, 25, 26,
30, 31, and 35, these claims recite the limitation of “like
associations” and also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
over Vora. The examiner points to Figure 9 of Vora, depicting
information sources such as Business News and Business Resources.
The examiner contends that this shows a “like association” both
resources “contain information related to business” (answer-page
5).
Appellant argues that Figure 9 of Vora “references different
types of documents, not content sources of multiple types as
claimed. The like associations are used to find content in such
different types of sources in the claims” (brief-page 12).
We are unpersuaded by appellant’s argument for the reasons
supra, i.e., contrary to appellant’s view, we find that the
different types of documents referenced by Vora are, broadly, yet
reasonably, content sources of different types. While, at page 9
of the brief, appellant asserts that a “like association is an
actual reference or preprocessed link to data in another
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007