Appeal No. 2006-1829
Application No. 09/921,020
displayed; and
automatically initiating a search for at least one item relevant to the selected text in
response to receiving the user input.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Graham et al. (Graham) 6,457,026 Sept. 24, 2002
(effective filing date Dec. 22, 1997)
Claims 1 through 7, 9 through 16 and 18 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Graham.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 16 and 18 through 21.
A claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 “if each and every limitation is found either
expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue
Labs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1374, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Graham describes a method and system for researching highlighted text in an electronic
multi-page document 502 (e.g., a book) (Figures 1 and 5; Abstract; column 1, lines 61 through
65; column 4, lines 47 and 48). A user 504 of the data processing system selects either a phrase
or a sentence of interest on a page of the electronic book displayed on a viewing area 202 of
display screen 24 (Figure 1, 2A through 2C and 5; column 3, line 57 through column 4, line 9;
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007