Appeal No. 2007-0429
Application 09/848,430
documents in a document corpus, as required by claim 1, we are reversing the
§ 103(a) rejection for obviousness over Call in view of Pirolli with respect to that
claim as well as with respect to the other claims grouped therewith, namely,
independent claims 5, 9, 13, and 15 and dependent claims 17-25.
THE REJECTION BASED ON PIROLLI, CALL, AND COHEN
The § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 2 and of the other claims grouped
therewith, namely, claims 6, 10, 14, and 16, is reversed because the above-noted
deficiency in Call and Pirolli is not cured by the subject matter the Examiner relies
on in Cohen. Cohen is cited by the Examiner only for a teaching of developing a
normalized vector containing floating point multipliers (Answer 9).
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2006), we are entering
a new ground of rejection of independent claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 15 and dependent
claims 18 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Call. Call
discloses that “an e-book player using the present invention could store a book
library four times as large as would be possible using indexed text files, while
providing more rapid and more robust search and display capabilities” (Call
para. 139). We understand this passage to mean that each e-book is converted to
and stored as a respective integer file. For the following reasons, we hold that
phrase “document corpus containing an ordered plurality of documents,” which
appears in each of the independent claims, reads on one of the books in Call’s e-
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013