Appeal 2007-0926
Application 09/818,303
Reimer teaches a video related query processing method, very similar
to the one disclosed. However, the issue of handling an ambiguous query is
not addressed in the same manner in the reference as in the claims. While
the claims clearly require that the user be prompted for input if the query
needs to be recast, Reimer teaches two approaches (a list of very definite
questions, and making assumptions) neither of which is the claimed method.
Examiner makes two arguments concerning this difference. (Answer
5, l. 3 ff). First he contends that Reimer teaches permitting the user to ask
multiple questions. We find that this feature of Reimer does not meet the
requirements of the “ascertaining” and “prompting” limitations of the claim.
(See FFs 1 to 4 above). The Examiner’s second argument equates selecting
a query from a menu to ascertaining if a question needs to be recast and
simultaneously recasting it. We do not find this line of reasoning
persuasive, as understood, as the separate step of ascertaining and prompting
are not disclosed.
We thus do not find that all of the claim elements can be found in the
Reimer reference, and we thus do not affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-25, 27-29, 31-38, 40-52, and 54-59 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Claims 3, 12, 30, and 39 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for being obvious over Reimer in view of Wang. Examiner has expressed
his rejection on page 14 of the Examiner’s Answer. Wang teaches an
improved user interface for a search engine, in which a query is applied to a
database. Under the teachings of our guiding courts concerning joining
references (see citations above), we notice that the two references are
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013