Appeal No. 96-3093
Application 08/046,880
34, and lines 39 to 43 of Crandall. These references to
Crandall do not teach this limitation. The same is true of
the limitation of "providing a fourth set of selectable
options graphically displayed with said second and third set
of options," [Claim 23, lines 6 to 7]. We further find that
the suggested combination further fails to meet the limitation
of "highlighting only selected ones of said fourth set of
options depending upon the selections of said second and third
options" [Claim 23, lines 7 to 9]. Again, the cited text and
the figures of Crandall which the Examiner argues for this
limitation do not meet this limitation.
Thus the collective teachings of Day and Crandall do not
support the rejection proposed by the Examiner. We conclude
that the evidence of obviousness produced by the Examiner
fails to support the rejection of independent claim 23. Since
claims 24 through 29 and 41 through 49 all depend on claim 23,
the rejection of these claims on the same ground likewise
falls.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 23 through
29 and 41 through 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Day and
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007