Appeal 2007-0342
Application 10/323,932
We therefore find Appellants’ arguments based on narrowing
limitations we are to read from the Specification to be unpersuasive.
Moreover, we note that the “value of textual authoritativeness” is merely an
alternative in claim 1. Even if Chakrabarti were not considered to teach a
value of “textual authoritativeness” for a document as alleged by Appellants,
the reference has not been shown to lack the alternative determination of a
“class of textual authority” for the document.
Instant claim 9 recites determining the set of document classification
attributes of a document based on information provided “within the
document.” Appellants argue that a link such as a URL is not “textual
contents” of a document (Br. 9), which we again find unpersuasive.
Appellants submit, in addition, that Chakrabarti only discloses two
approaches for determining the authoritativeness value of a document: (1)
based on hyperlinks to the document; and (2) based on what other
documents say about the document. (Br. 10.)
Chakrabarti describes an iterative method for determining the
authoritativeness of a document. Col. 5, ll. 15-20. The reference describes
one way of doing this at column 14, line 42 through column 15, line 20.
Different pages on the same Web site are considered together to avoid “self-
promotion” of Web sites that confer their authority upon themselves. While
the authoritativeness value of a document is based on hyperlinks to the
document, we find that the value is also based on hyperlinks within the
document. If multiple documents within a logical site have non-zero
authority, the authorities of all but the page with the largest authority are set
to zero. Chakrabarti col. 15, ll. 16-20.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013