Appeal No. 2007-0332
Application No. 10/316,312
Independent claim 14 (Bailey)
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 as
being anticipated by Bailey.
Appellants argue that Bailey does not disclose “a crawler configured
to extract at least one data unit from the source data,” as claimed (Br. 18).
The Examiner does not specifically rebut Appellants’ point of
argument (Answer 11-12). In the rejection, the Examiner corresponds the
claimed “crawler” (i.e., web crawler) to the web browser disclosed by Bailey
at col. 3, line 60 (Answer 6).
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
“reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. . IRECO, Inc., 190
F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1945 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words,
if granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee
to exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.”) (internal citations omitted). In the instant case, we find that the
claimed “crawler” does not fairly read on a web browser. We note that a
web crawler is a program that browses the World Wide Web (WWW) in a
methodical, automated manner. In contrast, a web browser only browses
WWW locations specified by a particular URL address entered by the user.
Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as being
anticipated by Bailey.
Claims 27-30
We next address the issue of whether claims 27-30 have been
examined (Br. 4). We note that claims 27-30 were added by the amendment
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013