Appeal No. 2006-0553
Application No. 09/444,121
Brobst or Dubbels in such a manner as to result in the instant
claimed subject matter.
In our view, appellants make a valid point in contending, at
page 10 of the brief, that Hoffert’s hash table scheme for
guaranteeing that only unique URLs are added to the database
would not be particularly advantageous when combined with Brobst
and Dubbels because they do not search globally for URLs as
search engines; and that Hoffert’s hash table limits URLs in the
index because the crawler will crawl vast numbers of web pages
during its work, and redundant pages are very likely to crop up,
whereas, in Brobst and Dubbels, only specific web pages are
tapped for printing, and general redundancies are not directly
dealt with because they are unlikely to occur.
Further, since Brobst combines multiple web pages into a
single conglomerate web page for printing as a single document,
and Dubbels has the user select the pages to be printed from a
list, it is not apparent how or why the artisan would have
combined Hoffert’s use of a hash table to keep track of web pages
that have been stored in a search database, with these teachings
of Brobst and Dubbels to arrive at the instant claimed subject
matter.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007