Appeal 2007-0459
Application 10/285,927
configuring said search to be automatically updated periodically;
performing a search of said storage components based on said
augmented search; and
retrieving a search result based on said search criteria.
THE REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
anticipation and unpatentability:
Barr US 5,873,076 Feb. 16, 1999
Liddy US 5,963,940 Oct. 5, 1999
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Liddy.
2. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Liddy in view of Barr.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon supports the Examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013