Appeal 2009-3941
Application 10/334,370
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3-8, 201, and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Brown.
2. Claims 2 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brown and Yanagihara.
ISSUES
1. Under 35 U.S.C § 102(e), with respect to the appealed claims 1, 3-8,
20, and 23-28, does Brown anticipate the claimed subject matter by
teaching all of the claimed limitations?
2. Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to the appealed claims 2 and
22, would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it obvious to
modify Brown with Yanagihara to render the claimed invention
unpatentable?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issues involved
in the appeal and are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. Appellants’ method claim 1 requires “receiving a document
having text therein from a host of a first computing system” and “returning a
subset of said categories to said host” after performing additional process
1 Claim 21 is advertently listed in place of claim 20 in the statement of the
rejection in both the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013