Appeal 2006-2673
Application 10/004,192
the rejection of claims 2, 12, and 17, nor their dependent claims 3-9, 13-16,
and 18-20.
REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
We make the following new ground of rejection using our authority
under 37 CFR § 41.50(b). Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Meyerzon. Meyerzon discloses the filtering
of web page URLs in response to an event notification associated with a
received URL. As discussed at column 9, lines 45-67 of Meyerzon, the
history table 400-2 is searched for a match with a received web page URL.
If no match is found, the received URL is further processed by adding it to
the history table. In making this rejection, we refer to our earlier discussion
of Meyerzon which concluded that there is sufficient support in Meyerzon
for the conclusion that the folders and documents in the history table are
arranged in a hierarchical tree format.
We further note that, although the Meyerzon reference has been
applied only against independent claims 1 and 10, this is not to be taken as
an indication of the patentability of the other claims on appeal. In any
resumption of the prosecution of this application before the Examiner, the
Examiner should consider the applicability of the applied prior art as well as
the other prior art of record and any other discovered prior art, to all of the
appealed claims 1-20.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013