Appeal No. 2006-2216
Application No. 09/741,038
U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to
arrive at the claimed invention. See also In re Rouffet, 149
F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966).
After reviewing the prior art references, we agree with
Appellants (reply brief, page 4) that neither Gusack nor Douglas
teaches or suggests more than one category of information
represented on the side edges of the virtual book. Contrary to
the Examiner’s reliance on element 614 of Figure 6 of Gusack as
the “information different than chapters/sections” to be
displayed (answer, page 9), these types of information relate to
the text within the actual pages and not those represented on the
side edges of the virtual book. Douglas, on the other hand,
describes different tabs represented on the side edges of the
virtual stack (see Figure 3a-3d). However, these tabs, similar
to Gusack represent one category of information related to the
virtual book, i.e., section or chapter headings or numbers.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007