Appeal No. 2006-0553
Application No. 09/444,121
While the examiner relies on Hoffert to supply this
teaching, Hoffert is directed to displaying search results for
multimedia files in a distributed database. Hoffert is not
directed, in any way, to “printing,” especially not to the
printing of web pages. We do not find Hoffert’s search engine
indexing mechanism such as the web “crawler” for finding URLs and
depositing their contents in a database to be applicable to the
operation of printing web pages, as claimed. While it is true
that Hoffert employs a “hash table” to prevent redundant indexing
of URLs, arguably analogous to appellants’ use of a hash table to
print a web page only once, there is no indication as to how such
a hash table would be used, or why it would be used, to prevent
the redundant printing of web pages, as required by instant claim
8, for example.
As explained by appellants, at page 9 of the brief,
Hoffert demonstrates the use of a hash table to keep
track of web pages that have been stored in a search
database (i.e., indexed web pages). It does not appear
to teach the use of a hash table to prevent redundant
printing. No suggestion is found in Hoffert to modify
the hash table so as to integrate it with a print
mechanism for printing multiple web pages.
Accordingly, it would not appear that the skilled artisan
would have found Hoffert’s teachings useful for modifying either
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007