Appeal 2007-0342
Application 10/323,932
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Saund US 5,687,364 Nov. 11, 1997
Chakrabarti US 6,336,112 B2 Jan. 1, 2002
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chakrabarti and Saund.
Earlier rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 have been
withdrawn by the Examiner (Answer 8).
OPINION
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner offers Chakrabarti and
Saund against instant claims 1 through 9. Based on Appellants’ arguments
in the Brief, we will consider independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9 as
representative of the invention for purposes of this appeal. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants submit, in response to the § 103 rejection of claim 1, that
the links (e.g., uniform resource locator (URL) or IP address ) contained in a
Web page as described by Chakrabarti do not correspond to “textual
contents” of a document as claimed. Saund is considered to not supply the
subject matter believed to be missing in Chakrabarti. (Br. 8-9.)
The Examiner responds (Answer 10) that hyperlinks or page links are
“textual contents” within a Web page or document. In the Reply Brief,
Appellants do not dispute that a hyperlink may be considered “textual
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013