Ex Parte Tarquini - Page 2

                Appeal 2006-2673                                                                                
                Application 10/004,192                                                                          
                                          STATEMENT OF CASE                                                     
                       Appellant’s invention relates to Uniform Resource Locator (URL)                          
                filtering in which a plurality of URLs are stored in a lexical search tree data                 
                structure.                                                                                      
                       Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and reads as                       
                follows:                                                                                        
                       1. A method for Uniform resource Locator (URL) filtering,                                
                             comprising:                                                                        
                       receiving an event notification upon the occurrence of an event                          
                   associated with a received URL;                                                              
                       searching, in response to said event notification, a lexical search tree                 
                   data structure storing a plurality of URLs for said received URL; and                        
                       processing said received URL in response to said received URL not                        
                   matching any of said plurality of URLs stored in said lexical search tree                    
                   data structure.                                                                              

                   The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on                         
                appeal is:                                                                                      
                Humes     US 5,996,011  Nov. 30, 1999                                                           
                Meyerzon     US 6,631,369 B1 Oct. 7, 2003                                                       
                                                                     (filed Jun. 30, 1999)                      
                       Claims 1, 10, and 11stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                   
                being anticipated by Humes.  Claims 2-9 and 12-20 stand finally rejected                        
                under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Humes in view of                            
                Meyerzon.                                                                                       



                                                       2                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013