Appeal 2007-0897
Application 09/741,926
In light of these remarks, in our assessment of Horvitz, it appears to
use that Horvitz does teach such a claimed history list as recited in
representative independent claim 1 on appeal. As such, it is not necessary
then for the Examiner to state that the Examiner infers that such a history list
contains a list of web-pages previously reviewed by the user. Based upon
the teachings we have also identified ourselves, the artisan clearly would
have found that Horvitz teaches the capability of storing the references of a
set according to their time of their inclusion into the history list. Even still,
the Examiner has identified in Kulkarni teachings that do indicate that it was
well known in the art for storing such references according to the time of
their inclusion as claimed.
From our review of Kulkarni in the paragraph bridging columns 1and
2, it is stated there that prior art browsers track activities using a so-called
linear history mechanism where pages visited are simply added to a linear
list such that current pages are at the top of the list and pages appear in
inverse chronological order thereafter. Subsequently, visited pages are said
to be added to the top of this list. This teaching appears to also address the
feature of storing the references to web-pages according to the time of their
inclusion in the history. Significantly, it is noted at the middle of column 3
that the same internet browser, the Internet Explorer, was utilized as the
basic teaching reference which has been modified according to Kulkarni’s
teachings that were additionally identified in Horvitz. The process showings
of flow charts in figures 3 and 5 of Kulkarni and their associated columnar
discussions are compelling as well of the obviousness of the subject matter
of representative independent claim 1 on appeal. The discussion of these
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013