Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
With respect to independent claim 7, the language requires "dragging selected
information from said text portion onto said image portion of said display and initiating
an information retrieval search in response thereto." Therefore, the Taligent reference
applied by the examiner does not teach or suggest the claimed invention. Additionally,
the examiner relies on the teachings of Bosworth which does not remedy the deficiency
in Cameron and Taligent, as discussed above. (See brief at pages 20 and 21.)
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 7 and its dependent
claim 8.
With respect to independent claims 16, 19, 41 and 44, appellants argue the drag
and drop limitation. (See brief at pages 22-24.) Therefore, we agree with appellants
and will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 16, 19, 41 and 44.
With respect to claims 9 and 20, the examiner relies on the teachings of
Ferguson to teach a custom network based electronic newspaper. (See answer at
pages 8-9.) We agree with the examiner that the user in Ferguson would select the
topics to be searched and presented. From our review of Ferguson, Ferguson teaches
that the end user creates a template of the topics of interest via a graphical user
interface. (Ferguson at col. 2.) Additionally, Ferguson teaches
[d]ifferent sections that are available to the end-user to select are
displayed at an options menu button 202 titled "Section." Listed on the
options menu button 202 is the currently selected section. In the example,
the currently selected section is titled "General News." (Other example
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007