Ex Parte MolanderDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 17, 200909845537 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte MARK E. MOLANDER ____________________ Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Decided:1 March 17, 2009 ____________________ Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JEAN R. HOMERE, and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). Claims 6 and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(2002). 1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the invention relates to providing multiple user-selectable functions from an individual menu item (Spec. 1, ll. 4-8). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below: 1. A method of providing secondary functions from a menu item graphical control, said method comprising: including a plurality of graphical components with the menu item graphical control, each of the graphical components corresponding to a different programmed function, wherein the menu item graphical control includes a default area in addition to the plurality of graphical components; displaying the menu item graphical control with the included graphical components and the default area, wherein each of the graphical components are displayed in a position horizontal to the default area; receiving a selection from a user corresponding to the menu item graphical control; invoking a default function in response to the selection corresponding to the default area of the menu item graphical control; and in response to the selection corresponding to one of the graphical components, invoking the programmed function corresponding the selected graphical component. Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 3 C. REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: The Google Toolbar reference (herein “the Google Toolbar reference”) consists of annotated, printed web pages (numbered 1-6 by the Examiner) describing the Google ToolbarTM. These web pages were obtained by searching for the term “http://toolbar.google.com” on the Internet Archive WaybackMachine. The search report (herein “WaybackMachine report”) bears the URL http://web.archive.org/web/*/toolbar.google.com and two printed pages, numbered 7 and 8 by the Examiner. Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by the teachings of the Google Toolbar reference. We affirm. II. ISSUES Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding (1) that the Google Toolbar is a “menu item graphical control” (Claim 1), and thus, the claims are anticipated by the Google Toolbar reference; (2) that the Google Toolbar reference is prior art; and (3) that the declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is ineffective to overcome the Google Toolbar reference? III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 4 The Google Toolbar Reference 1. The Google Toolbar includes “Google Search” to access Google search technology from any web page, “Search Site” (labeled “Element 3” by the Examiner) to search only the pages of the visited site, “PageRank” (labeled “Element 2”) to see Google’s ranking of the current page, “Page Info” to access more information about a page including similar pages, pages that link back to that page, as well as a cached snapshot, “Highlight” to highlight search terms as they appear on the page, and “Word Find” to find search terms wherever they appear on the page (the Google Toolbar reference at 1, bearing URL http://web.archive.org/web/http://web.archive.org/web/200102020303 00/http://toolbar.google.com/). 2. The Examiner has labeled the portion of the toolbar that contains the name “Google” as “Element 1” (the Google Toolbar reference at 1). 3. The Google Toolbar Drop Down Menu is accessible by clicking on the Google logo within the toolbar to provide different menu functions (the Google Toolbar reference at 5, bearing URL http://web.archive.org/web/20010301204533/toolbar.google.com/men u_help.html). 4. The WaybackMachine search report relied on by the Examiner includes links dated from February 2, 2001, to January 25, 2004, for the search “http://toolbar.ggogle.com” (WaybackMachine report at 7). 5. The Examiner stated that the web pages that comprise the Google Toolbar reference were accessed using “the oldest available link on Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 5 the Wayback Machine to access ‘http://toolbar.google.com/’ which was 02/02/2001” (Supp. Ans. 2). IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 102 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) “In other words, if granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. (citations omitted). The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). "[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 6 Electronic publication as prior art An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981) (“Accordingly, whether information is printed, handwritten, or on microfilm or a magnetic disc or tape, etc., the one who wishes to characterize the information, in whatever form it may be, as a ‘printed publication’ * * * should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents” (citations omitted)). Prior art disclosures on the Internet or on an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted. Absent evidence of the date that the disclosure was publicly posted, if the publication itself does not include a publication date (or retrieval date), it cannot be relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b). MPEP § 2128. Declaration under 37 C.F.R § 1.131 § 1.131 Affidavit or declaration of prior invention: (a) When any claim of an application . . . is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected claim . . . may submit an appropriate . . . declaration to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based. . . . Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 7 (b) The showing of facts shall be such, in character and weight, as to establish [1] reduction to practice prior to the effective date of the reference, or [2] conception of the invention prior to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from prior to said date to a subsequent [actual] reduction to practice or to the filing of the application [i.e., a constructive reduction to practice]. Original exhibits of drawings or records, or photocopies thereof, must accompany and form part of the . . . declaration or their absence must be satisfactorily explained. A declaration submitted pursuant to Rule 131 is evaluated on its merits by considering the evidence relied upon in light of the arguments made explaining why the evidence is sufficient. The Board has broad discretion as to the weight to be given the evidence. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Inland Steel, Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001). V. ANALYSIS Appellant provides the same arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-26. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as being representative of the cited claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Claims are Anticipated by the Google Toolbar Reference Appellant argues that “[t]he Google Toolbar does not disclose multiple user-selectable functions from an individual menu item” and “[i]n effect, the Google Toolbar becomes another toolbar that can be used from another web page” and “is therefore not a ‘menu item graphical control,’ as Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 8 required by the claims” (App. Br. 7). Appellant further notes that, although the drop down menu [shown on the Google Toolbar reference at 5] includes menu items, “[n]one of the menu items shows a ‘menu item graphical control’ containing ‘a plurality of graphical components,’” as required by the claims (id.). However, the Examiner finds that “‘menu item graphical control’ is never specifically defined in the specification” (Ans. 8), and that “a toolbar is considered a menu item graphical control because it controls menu items” wherein “[e]ach of the menu items on the toolbar correspond to a different programmed function (i.e. ‘search site’ and ‘search’); furthermore there is a drop down sub-menu for even more options” (id. at 8-9). In particular, the Examiner reads the recited “menu item graphical control” on the Google Toolbar, the recited “default area” on Element 1, and reads the recited plurality of graphical components on Elements 2 and 3 (id. at 3). Thus, we determine in this Appeal whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in reading the recited “menu item graphical control” on the Google Toolbar. We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Appellant’s claim 1 simply does not place any limitation on what the term “menu item graphical control” means, includes or represents. Furthermore, as the Examiner finds, “‘menu item graphical control’ is never Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 9 specifically defined in the specification” (Ans. 8). We therefore agree with the Examiner’s finding that “a toolbar is considered a menu item graphical control because it controls menu items” wherein “[e]ach of the menu items on the toolbar correspond to a different programmed function (i.e. ‘search site’ and ‘search’); furthermore there is a drop down sub-menu for even more options” (id. at 8-9). Thus, we will not narrowly construe “menu item graphical control” to mean a “menu item,” as the Appellant contends. The Google Toolbar reference includes a toolbar which includes graphical components such as “Google Search,” “Search Site,” and “PageRank” which correspond to functions such as searching or ranking (FF 1-2), wherein Google Toolbar Drop Down Menu is accessible by clicking on the Google logo within the toolbar to provide different menu functions (FF 3). We find an artisan would have understood the Google Toolbar of the Google Toolbar reference to be a “menu item graphical control” (Claim 1) which comprises a plurality of graphical components such as “Google Search,” “Search Site,” and “PageRank.” Accordingly, we conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the Google Toolbar described in the Google Toolbar reference includes all of the limitations recited in claim 1. Google Toolbar is Prior art In the Reply Brief, Appellant adds the argument that “there is absolutely no publication date on the Google reference whatsoever” and Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 10 that, “because a publication date does not appear on the Google Toolbar reference, the earliest date that can be relied upon by the Examiner is October 24, 2004 (the retrieval date of the reference)” after the filing date of the application (Reply Br. 3). However, the Examiner responds that “[t]he date of the reference is imbedded within the URL (i.e. 20010202…)” (Supp. Ans. 3) and that “[t]he Examiner used the oldest available link on the WaybackMachine to access ‘http://toolbar.google.com/’ which was 02/02/2001’” (id. at 2). Thus, we determine on this Appeal whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the Google Toolbar reference was published prior to Appellant’s application filing on April 30, 2001. We generally agree with the Examiner’s finding that the Google Toolbar reference is prior art beginning at page 2 of the Supplemental Answer. As noted above, the Examiner finds that the content relied upon in Google Toolbar was available on a website as early as February 2, 2001, as set forth by the URL of the website as well as the cached link listed on the internet archive website, as determined by the WaybackMachine (Supp. Ans. 2, FF 4-5). Because the number sequence “20010202” in the URL that appears at the top of page 1 of Google Toolbar is consistent with the Examiner’s assertion that page was obtained by using the February 2, 2001 WaybackMachine link, this evidence prima facie establishes that page 1 was publicly available on that date. Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 11 However, we also note that the URLs at the tops of pages 2-6 do not contain that same date sequence. Instead, the URLs on pages 2-4 contain the sequence “20010208” (February 8, 2001) and the URLs on pages 5-6 contain the sequence “20010301” (March 1, 2001). Although the Examiner apparently inadvertently erred in indicating that these pages were publicly available on February 2, 2001, their dates still precede Appellant’s April 30, 2001, filing date.2 Though Appellant contends that “there is absolutely no publication date on the Google reference whatsoever” (Reply Br. 3), Google Toolbar is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) since it was accessible on-line prior to April 30, 2001. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d at 227. That is, though Appellant quotes MPEP § 2128 in relevant part as follows: “If the publication does not include a publication date (or retrieval date), it cannot be relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b), although it may be relied upon to provide evidence regarding the state of the art” (Reply Br. 4, bolding and italics omitted), that language appeared in previous versions of § 2128 and has been replaced with the following language: “>Absent evidence of the date that the disclosure was publicly posted, if< the publication >itself< does not include a publication date (or retrieval date), it cannot be relied upon as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 2 It is apparent from the URLs that pages 2-4 were retrieved by using WaybackMachine.com to search for “toolbar.google.com/button_help.html” and that pages 5-6 were retrieved using a search for “toolbar.google.com/menu_help.html,” which we have confirmed. We attach those search reports hereto. Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 12 102(a) or (b)*>. However<, it may be relied upon to provide evidence regarding the state of the art” (MPEP § 2128, 8th ed, rev. 7, July 2008). As set forth by MPEP § 2128, prior art disclosures on the Internet are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted, which, in this case, includes the dates of February 2, 2001, February 8, 2001, and March 1, 2001. Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s reliance on the URLs and the WaybackMachine report is improper because the dates therein are hearsay (Suppl. Reply Br. 2) is also unconvincing. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The inapplicability of hearsay evidence rules in ex parte PTO examination is appropriate in light of the purpose and reason for the hearsay rule”). Consequently, the Appellant has not met his burden of proving that the Examiner erred in relying on Google Toolbar as a reference or in finding that Google Toolbar is an anticipatory reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The Declaration under 37C.F.R. 1.131 is Ineffective to overcome Google Toolbar The Examiner also finds that the declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 “is ineffective to overcome the Google Toolbar reference” (Ans. 9). Thus, we also determine on this Appeal whether the declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is ineffective to overcome Google Toolbar. We generally agree with the Examiner’s findings in the Answer starting with page 9 of the Answer. We agree with the Examiner that the Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 13 declaration is on its face legally insufficient. In particular, we find that the declaration fails to address each claim element and explain why the declaration and accompanying Exhibit A prove the alleged conception and diligence. Instead, the declaration (in paragraph 2) states, without elaboration, only the following regarding conception and diligence: 2. Prior to February 2, 2001, I conceived of, in the United States of America, the invention described and claimed in the subject application. I further showed diligence from the date of conception to the filing date of the subject application. Conception and diligence to filing is evidenced by the following: a) I submitted IBM Invention disclosure Form RSW8-2000- 0109, attached as Exhibit A hereto, which describes the invention described and claimed in the subject application. b) Each of the dates deleted form Exhibit A is prior to February 2, 2001. c) I worked diligently with a patent attorney in order to file the subject application on April 30, 2001. As to conception, the declaration does not explain how Exhibit A, which is an Invention Disclosure Form, proves conception of each claim limitation. Consequently, the facts recited in the declaration are insufficient to establish conception of any of the individual elements of the instant claims before the date of the reference. As to diligence, the declaration does not identify acts demonstrating that diligence began before the reference date and continued to Appellant’s April 30, 2001, filing date, as required to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). Consequently, the declaration and accompanying argument are insufficient to establish the requisite diligence. Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 14 Appellant has therefor failed to show that the Examiner erred in holding that the declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 is ineffective to overcome Google Toolbar. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-26 are anticipated by the teachings of Google Toolbar. (2) Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-26 are not patentable. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19- 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc IBM CORPORATION - RSW (JVL) C/O VAN LEEUWEN & VAN LEEUWEN P.O. BOX 90609 AUSTIN TX 78709-0609 Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 15 Enter Web Address: http:// All Take Me Back Adv. Search Compare Archive Pages Searched for http://toolbar.google.com/button_help.html 376 Results Note some duplicates are not shown. See all. * denotes when site was updated. Material typically becomes available here 6 months after collection. See FAQ. Search Results for Jan 01, 1996 - Sep 17, 2008 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 20 pages 10 pages 6 pages 117 pages 98 pages Feb 08, 2001 * Mar 31, 2001 * Apr 11, 2001 Jun 12, 2001 Aug 01, 2001 Oct 06, 2001 * Oct 09, 2001 Nov 04, 2001 * Nov 05, 2001 Nov 07, 2001 Nov 10, 2001 Nov 12, 2001 Nov 16, 2001 Nov 17, 2001 Nov 20, 2001 Nov 24, 2001 Nov 25, 2001 Nov 27, 2001 Nov 29, 2001 Dec 14, 2001 Feb 03, 2002 Jun 05, 2002 * Aug 02, 2002 Oct 01, 2002 Nov 04, 2002 * Nov 15, 2002 * Nov 18, 2002 * Nov 25, 2002 * Dec 01, 2002 Dec 02, 2002 Feb 01, 2003 * Apr 01, 2003 * Jun 09, 2003 Aug 01, 2003 * Oct 02, 2003 * Dec 06, 2003 * Apr 08, 2004 * Jun 11, 2004 Jun 12, 2004 Jun 13, 2004 Jun 15, 2004 Jun 16, 2004 Jun 18, 2004 Jun 19, 2004 Jun 22, 2004 Jun 23, 2004 Jun 24, 2004 Jun 25, 2004 Jun 26, 2004 Jun 27, 2004 Jun 28, 2004 Jun 29, 2004 Jun 30, 2004 Jul 01, 2004 Jul 03, 2004 Jul 04, 2004 Jul 05, 2004 Jul 06, 2004 Jul 07, 2004 Jul 08, 2004 Jul 10, 2004 Jan 03, 2005 Jan 08, 2005 Jan 10, 2005 Jan 11, 2005 Jan 13, 2005 Jan 14, 2005 Jan 20, 2005 Jan 21, 2005 Jan 31, 2005 Feb 04, 2005 Feb 05, 2005 Feb 06, 2005 Feb 09, 2005 Feb 12, 2005 Feb 14, 2005 Feb 15, 2005 Feb 17, 2005 Feb 18, 2005 Feb 20, 2005 Feb 21, 2005 Mar 02, 2005 Mar 03, 2005 Mar 04, 2005 Mar 10, 2005 Mar 11, 2005 Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 16 Jul 11, 2004 Jul 12, 2004 Jul 14, 2004 Jul 15, 2004 Jul 16, 2004 Jul 17, 2004 Jul 18, 2004 Jul 21, 2004 Jul 22, 2004 Jul 23, 2004 Jul 24, 2004 Jul 25, 2004 Jul 26, 2004 Aug 04, 2004 Aug 05, 2004 Aug 06, 2004 Aug 09, 2004 Aug 10, 2004 Aug 11, 2004 Aug 12, 2004 Aug 13, 2004 Aug 14, 2004 Aug 15, 2004 Aug 16, 2004 Aug 17, 2004 Aug 18, 2004 Aug 19, 2004 Aug 20, 2004 Aug 21, 2004 Aug 22, 2004 Aug 24, 2004 Aug 25, 2004 Aug 26, 2004 Aug 27, 2004 Aug 28, 2004 Aug 29, 2004 Aug 30, 2004 Aug 31, 2004 Sep 02, 2004 Sep 03, 2004 Sep 04, 2004 Sep 05, 2004 Sep 06, 2004 Sep 07, 2004 Sep 08, 2004 Sep 09, 2004 Sep 10, 2004 Sep 11, 2004 Sep 12, 2004 Sep 13, 2004 Mar 16, 2005 Mar 24, 2005 Mar 30, 2005 Apr 06, 2005 Apr 10, 2005 Apr 14, 2005 Apr 15, 2005 Apr 16, 2005 Apr 19, 2005 Apr 23, 2005 Apr 24, 2005 Apr 28, 2005 May 07, 2005 May 16, 2005 May 19, 2005 May 26, 2005 May 28, 2005 May 30, 2005 Jun 01, 2005 Jun 14, 2005 Jun 15, 2005 Jun 17, 2005 Jun 20, 2005 Jun 22, 2005 Jun 24, 2005 Jun 25, 2005 Jul 06, 2005 Jul 09, 2005 Jul 10, 2005 Jul 12, 2005 Jul 19, 2005 Jul 25, 2005 Jul 31, 2005 Aug 04, 2005 Aug 11, 2005 Aug 12, 2005 Aug 13, 2005 Aug 17, 2005 Aug 19, 2005 Aug 26, 2005 Aug 27, 2005 Aug 28, 2005 Aug 29, 2005 Aug 30, 2005 Sep 07, 2005 Sep 10, 2005 Sep 14, 2005 Sep 16, 2005 Sep 20, 2005 Sep 23, 2005 Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 17 Sep 14, 2004 Sep 15, 2004 Sep 16, 2004 Sep 18, 2004 Sep 21, 2004 Sep 23, 2004 Sep 24, 2004 Sep 25, 2004 Sep 29, 2004 Oct 01, 2004 Oct 09, 2004 Oct 12, 2004 Oct 14, 2004 Oct 15, 2004 Oct 16, 2004 Oct 17, 2004 Oct 18, 2004 Oct 20, 2004 Oct 21, 2004 Oct 23, 2004 Oct 25, 2004 Oct 27, 2004 Oct 29, 2004 Oct 30, 2004 Nov 05, 2004 Nov 09, 2004 Nov 10, 2004 Nov 12, 2004 Nov 13, 2004 Nov 17, 2004 Nov 20, 2004 Nov 21, 2004 Nov 22, 2004 Nov 25, 2004 Nov 26, 2004 Nov 28, 2004 Nov 30, 2004 Dec 08, 2004 Dec 11, 2004 Dec 13, 2004 Dec 18, 2004 Dec 30, 2004 Sep 29, 2005 Sep 30, 2005 Oct 01, 2005 Oct 13, 2005 Oct 23, 2005 Oct 29, 2005 Oct 30, 2005 Oct 31, 2005 Nov 02, 2005 Nov 05, 2005 Nov 06, 2005 Nov 24, 2005 Nov 25, 2005 Nov 26, 2005 Nov 27, 2005 Nov 30, 2005 Dec 01, 2005 Dec 03, 2005 Dec 10, 2005 Dec 18, 2005 Dec 19, 2005 Dec 20, 2005 Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 18 Enter Web Address: http:// All Take Me Back Adv. Search Compare Archive Pages Searched for http://toolbar.google.com/menu_help.html 174 Results Note some duplicates are not shown. See all. * denotes when site was updated. Material typically becomes available here 6 months after collection. See FAQ. Search Results for Jan 01, 1996 - Sep 17, 2008 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 0 pages 16 pages 8 pages 5 pages 99 pages 6 pages Mar 01, 2001 * Apr 11, 2001 * Jun 12, 2001 Aug 05, 2001 Oct 09, 2001 * Oct 31, 2001 * Nov 01, 2001 Nov 03, 2001 Nov 05, 2001 Nov 07, 2001 Nov 12, 2001 Nov 16, 2001 Nov 25, 2001 Nov 26, 2001 Nov 27, 2001 Nov 29, 2001 Feb 04, 2002 Jun 06, 2002 * Aug 02, 2002 Oct 01, 2002 * Nov 04, 2002 Nov 17, 2002 * Nov 18, 2002 Dec 02, 2002 * Feb 10, 2003 * Apr 16, 2003 Jun 18, 2003 Aug 01, 2003 * Dec 04, 2003 * Feb 04, 2004 Apr 09, 2004 * Jun 05, 2004 * Jun 10, 2004 Jun 11, 2004 Jun 12, 2004 Jun 15, 2004 Jun 16, 2004 Jun 18, 2004 Jun 22, 2004 Jun 24, 2004 Jun 25, 2004 Jun 26, 2004 Jun 28, 2004 Jun 29, 2004 Jul 01, 2004 Jul 02, 2004 Jul 03, 2004 Jul 04, 2004 Jul 05, 2004 Jul 07, 2004 Jul 08, 2004 Jul 10, 2004 Jul 11, 2004 Jul 12, 2004 Feb 05, 2005 Apr 03, 2005 May 26, 2005 Nov 23, 2005 Dec 10, 2005 Dec 29, 2005 Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 19 Jul 14, 2004 Jul 15, 2004 Jul 16, 2004 Jul 17, 2004 Jul 18, 2004 Jul 20, 2004 Jul 24, 2004 * Jul 25, 2004 Aug 06, 2004 Aug 08, 2004 Aug 09, 2004 Aug 10, 2004 Aug 11, 2004 Aug 13, 2004 Aug 14, 2004 Aug 15, 2004 Aug 16, 2004 Aug 17, 2004 Aug 18, 2004 Aug 19, 2004 Aug 20, 2004 Aug 21, 2004 Aug 22, 2004 Aug 24, 2004 Aug 27, 2004 Aug 28, 2004 Aug 29, 2004 Aug 30, 2004 Aug 31, 2004 Sep 01, 2004 Sep 03, 2004 Sep 04, 2004 Sep 06, 2004 Sep 08, 2004 Sep 09, 2004 Sep 10, 2004 Sep 11, 2004 Sep 13, 2004 Sep 14, 2004 Sep 15, 2004 Sep 16, 2004 Sep 17, 2004 Sep 20, 2004 Sep 21, 2004 Sep 22, 2004 Sep 24, 2004 Sep 25, 2004 Sep 29, 2004 Oct 01, 2004 Oct 11, 2004 Appeal 2008-2589 Application 09/845,537 20 Oct 12, 2004 Oct 13, 2004 Oct 15, 2004 Oct 16, 2004 Oct 17, 2004 Oct 18, 2004 Oct 21, 2004 Oct 22, 2004 Oct 23, 2004 Oct 25, 2004 Oct 26, 2004 Oct 27, 2004 Oct 28, 2004 Oct 31, 2004 Nov 03, 2004 Nov 08, 2004 Nov 09, 2004 Nov 10, 2004 Nov 12, 2004 Nov 13, 2004 Nov 19, 2004 Nov 22, 2004 Dec 04, 2004 Dec 29, 2004 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation