Appeal 2007-1341
Application 09/894,065
new attribute because the receipt of a new value of an existing attribute, as
disclosed by McCormack, cannot meet the "new attribute" limitation as
claimed. (Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3.) In other words, Appellants argue that
the claimed "new attribute" must be a new attribute category, not just a new
value of an attribute. (Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3.) We do not agree.
The plain language of claim 1 merely requires receipt of notification
that a new attribute can be searched, and upon receipt of such notification
the set of attributes is dynamically updated. Nothing in the claim language
requires the "new attribute" to be a new category of attribute -- i.e., an
attribute category that was not previously a member of the set of attributes.
When a new attribute value is detected in the polling process, this serves as
receipt of a notification that the new attribute value can be searched, and the
set of attributes is dynamically updated. Appellants propose an alternative
construction of claim 1, but they have not demonstrated why the Examiner's
construction is inconsistent with the Specification or otherwise
unreasonable. Thus, we find that the Examiner's construction of claim 1 is
reasonable.
In addition, the Examiner found that even if the claim term "new
attribute" requires a new attribute category rather than a new attribute value,
McCormack nevertheless discloses a new attribute category in the example
where a second attribute is added to a search attribute after conducting a
search using only a first attribute. (Answer 10; FF 4.) We agree. Also, we
note that McCormack teaches that an attribute having no value is not
displayed to the user. (FF 2.) If such an attribute subsequently was updated
to have a value, then the attribute would then be displayed to the user for the
first time and could be considered a new attribute category.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013