Appeal 2007-0459
Application 10/285,927
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner finds the argued claim
language of “monitoring communications for predetermined search
parameters” broadly but reasonably reads on Liddy’s disclosure of “before
the query representation is sent to the matcher, results of the query
processing (indicating the query representation) are displayed for the user”
(i.e., where the user is given an opportunity to modify the query
representation before matching) (col. 8, ll. 12-17) (Answer 13-14).
We begin our analysis by looking again to Appellants’ Specification
for context. The Specification discloses agent monitoring of system records
and employee work product, as follows:
The agent 44 monitors records 28 in the system 20. The agent
44 can be used to monitor the work product of employees,
connect content suppliers 22 working on similar projects,
identify building blocks such as seed topics for subsequent
activities, or otherwise uncover information relevant to the
searcher 32.
(Specification 8: ll. 6-10).
The Specification further discloses using “collaboration tool 180” to
monitor the e-mail communications of team members using various
keywords, as follows:
In the ordinary course of a project, team members exchange
emails to communicate their progress, problems and solutions
to other members of the team. The collaboration tool 180 can
monitor these emails and use various keyword or content
identification algorithms to recognize that there is a common
interest between the two disparate teams. Thus, the
collaboration tool 180 can be used to unite researchers and save
the company money in duplicative work. This is accomplished
by having the collaboration tool 180 prowl within various
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013