Appeal No. 1997-1199
Application No. 08/309,366
agree with the Examiner that Tyne’s folder can be considered
as one group (answer, page 3), however, there is no evidence
to support the Examiner’s assertion (id. 4) that “it would
have been obvious . . . to organize the attribute sets into
groups.” Thus, the suggested combination cannot meet the
steps of claim 1 involving the manipulation of groups, e.g.,
the step of “selecting one group from the group of
attributes.”
Furthermore, we agree with Appellants that Tyne does not
show the claimed workstation attributes (brief, page 5). We
find that in Tyne’s fig. 13.1, each of the icons facilitates
the creation of another icon specific to a particular device,
i.e.,
a printer, which may then be dragged to a desired location
(p. 300 of Tyne), and that icon then would not be a part of
the Examiner-called template types pane of fig. 13.1.
Similarly, Sanchez-Frank does not show the claimed attributes
since, as Appellants state, regarding fig. 2 of Sanchez-Frank,
“[n]etwork configuration and protocol definitions provide
controls to manipulate icons in the workspace 8 and are thus
not system attributes.” (Id. 7). Thus, we do not sustain the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007