Appeal 2007-0459
Application 10/285,927
and 3). Indeed, the Specification explicitly discloses: “The agent 44 can
incorporate the processing of a search augmentation module 40 and a
security module 42 in generating and executing the search 46”
(Specification 8: 19-21). Therefore, we find the scope of the recited “agent”
broadly but reasonably encompasses a software component that performs its
functions in association with other software components. Thus, we find the
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position that the
claimed “agent” broadly but reasonably reads on Liddy’s Query Processor
that automatically constructs a logical representation of the natural language
query in association with other software elements that generate, sort, rank,
and display documents automatically (col. 3, ll. 11-13, 42-45, col. 2, ll. 48-
53, col. 19, ll. 30-32).
Specifically, we find Liddy’s Query Processor processes the user
query (possibly a natural language query) and automatically generates an
alternative representation of the query that is used to search for matching
documents (col. 2, ll. 48-53, col. 7, l. 65 through col. 8, l. 22). We find the
claimed “augmented search” broadly but reasonably reads on Liddy’s
disclosure of “enrichment of the query” that results in the alternative (i.e.,
augmented) query representation that is used for matching documents (col.
2, ll. 51-53, col. 8, ll. 3-9). We note that Liddy discloses: “[o]nce the query,
possibly modified, is executed, the search results are displayed to the user”
(col. 8, ll. 21-22). Thus, we find Liddy discloses an agent that generates an
augmented search, performs the search, and retrieves a result, as claimed.
Because we find that Liddy discloses all that is claimed, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being anticipated by Liddy.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013