Appeal No. 2006-2702 Page 9
Application No. 09/881,234
instance (data) which is to be published and which are read . . . which represents
a looping of data (i.e. query sequences) to perform setup, preprocessing, and
table generation.” According to the examiner (id.), Reed “describe[s] the
program begins a second loop through each recipient and using such recipient
attributes and methods to generate and transmit a communications object
instance for all recipients . . . which represents a looping of other data such as
the looping of subject sequences.”
Based on this evidence, the examiner concludes (Answer, page 9),
A skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been
motivated to make improvements to analysis server sites, such as
that stated by Smith . . . by adding additional features to further
simplify access and improve analysis resources . . . . It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to compress data (as stated by Altschul et al.
and Reed et al.) and to use looping processes (as stated by Reed
et al.) in the method of Smith et al., where the motivation would
have been to offer enhanced, integrated, easy-to-use, and time-
saving techniques to a large number of useful molecular biology
database search and analysis services for organizing and
improving access to these tools for genome researchers worldwide
. . . .
In response, appellants argue (Brief, page 11), there is no suggestion or
motivation to modify “the search launcher interface” of Smith with the combined
teachings of Altschul and Reed. In this regard, appellants assert that Smith “is
merely a WWW gateway to pre-existing search services . . . .” Brief, page 13.
According to appellants (Brief, page 16), Smith “teaches the running of
sequence-to-database searches, but fails to teach or fairly suggest numerous
claim limitations required by all of the claims, including . . .” the requirement of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007