Appeal 2006-2673
Application 10/004,192
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10 based on the Humes reference, Appellant’s
arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not shown how each of
the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Humes so as to establish a
case of anticipation. Appellant’s arguments (Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4-5) focus
on the contention that, in contrast to the claimed invention, Humes lacks a
disclosure of searching through a “search tree data structure” for a
comparison of a received web page URL with stored web page URLs.
We agree with Appellant that Humes simply has no disclosure of a
tree-type data structure which is searched for a web page URL comparison.
While Humes discloses (col. 3, ll. 45-67) the comparison of each word in a
received web page with a dictionary of stored words, there is no indication
from the description in Humes that such dictionary of stored words is
arranged in any manner of hierarchical format that would be required to
satisfy the claimed “tree” data structure.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim limitations are
not present in the disclosure of Humes, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, nor of claim 11
dependent thereon.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013