Appeal 2009-3941
Application 10/334,370
and 26 also recite a “dot product of a vector of document weights and a
vector of said category weights,” which is not taught by Brown. Therefore,
we agree with Appellants and find that, since all the claimed limitations are
not taught, Brown cannot anticipate claims 5, 6, 25, and 26, as well as claims
7, 8, 27, and 28, dependent thereon.2
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
With respect to the rejection of claims 2 and 22, Appellants argue that
Yanagihara may not be combined with Brown since no suggestion was
presented for the combination and the reference has no teaching related to
displaying text in a non-text format nor generating tokens of the text to be
used in generating the document keys (Reply Br. 16-19). The Examiner
appears to read the claimed “extracting text from said document” as copying
the text from the document (Answer 12). The Examiner further relies on
the search strategy of Yanagihara depicted in Figure 4b for teaching
generating tokens of said text (id.).
Again, we agree with the Examiner’s position since the claims are
broad enough to encompass copying the text as the claimed extracting text.
Additionally, the claimed “non-text format” reads on any graphic or other
formats that are not text. We also find that since using tokens is known in
the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use
tokens of Yanagihara in Brown for removing stop words from the search (FF
15) and performing the queries more efficiently by using tokens.
2 It appears that words are missing from lines 4 and 8 of claims 6 and 26,
after the word “importance.”
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013