Appeal 2006-2673
Application 10/004,192
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 102(e), with respect to appealed claims 1, 10,
and 11, does Humes have a disclosure which anticipates the
claimed invention? Specifically, does Humes disclose searching
through a lexical search tree data structure for stored URLs which
match a received URL?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 2-9 and
12-20, has the Examiner established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the combination of Humes and Meyerzon?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant has invented a method and system for Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) filtering in which a plurality of URLs are stored in a lexical
search tree data structure. Upon notification of the occurrence of an event
associated with a received URL, the lexical search tree data structure is
searched for a match for the received URL. If there is no match for the
1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 28, 2005. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 17, 2006, a Reply Brief was filed March
14, 2006 which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated
in the communication mailed May 31, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013