Appeal No. 2000-0829
Application 09/079,054
known in the art. That reference teaches, in Fig. 4D, a menu of
options for a selected object.
The examiner took the position, in the final rejection, that
providing a multi-level pull-down menu to retrieve information of
a selected object was well known at the time of the invention.
The applicants challenged that assertion and the examiner
responded by supporting its finding of fact with a reference that
demonstrates that at the time of the invention, providing a
multi-level pull-down menu to retrieve information of a selected
object was well known.
Applicants failure to respond to the examiner’s supporting
evidence of its finding of fact that providing multi-level menus
to retrieve information of a selected object was well known is
fatal to it. The examiner’s findings stand unchallenged based on
the record before us. For this reason alone, we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8.
Furthermore, the examiner argues that the motivation to
retrieve the lighting parameter information vis a vis menus or
lists comes from Taylor itself. Taylor recognizes the advantages
of entering data into the modeling system using menus and
dialogue boxes in order to enter valid data in valid sequences
(col. 4, lines 33-35) and to present to the programmer the only
legitimate alternatives available, thereby precluding invalid
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007