Appeal No. 1996-4148
Application No. 08/327,085
skilled in the art to replace the cubic display of Kreitman et
al. with a carrousel because of the benefits of the carrousel
display, why did Kreitman et al. not suggest a carrousel
display. Appellant further notes that the assignee3 of
Kreitman et al. is known for its use of graphic displays.
In the final rejection4 the Examiner points to column 1,
lines 31-35 of Kreitman et al. which provides ". . . icons are
generally considered to be more visually and logically
appealing to users than text. For example, an icon which
depicts a file folder instantly tells the user that this
object may contain multiple documents." The Examiner then
states that an icon which depicts a file folder is an example
of the carrousel element of claim 1. At page 8 of the final
rejection the Examiner asserts "[c]hanging from a polygon
shape (or any other shape) into a carrousel would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the present
invention was made because a carrousel can
3 Apple Computer, Inc.
4 Paper No. 5, at pages 3-4.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007