Appeal No. 2006-2975
Application No. 09/794,742
With respect to representative claim 1, Appellants argue in
the Briefs that neither Roberts nor Nielsen teaches determining
whether each attribute value is associated with a corresponding
anchor tag pair via a link text string, which is subsequently
stored in an index file. Further, Appellants argue that the cited
combination of references does not teach the limitation of linking
an attribute value to a title tag pertaining to a page if the
attribute value is not associated with a link text string.
Particularly, at pages 7 and 8 of the Appeal Brief,3 Appellants
state the following:
Roberts in view of Nielsen fail to teach or suggest
the recited features of determining if there is a link
text string associated with attribute values in a
searched web page and storing those link text strings and
associated attributes in an index file and creating a
second web page based on the index file, and linking to a
defined page URL to parse a title tag for the index file
if it was determined that there is no associated link
text string in the web page.
In order for us to decide the question of obviousness,
“[t]he first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA
1970). “Analysis begins with a key legal question-- what is the
invention claimed ?”...Claim interpretation...will normally
3 We note that Appellants reiterate these same arguments at pages 4 through 6
of the Reply Brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007