Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685
proximity event detected about it, Hodgson does not describe highlighting inter-
related nodes as well. Therefore, we find the examiner's arguments to be
unpersuasive.
Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wills and Hodgson.
Claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wills,
Hodgson and Theisen.
The examiner relies on Theisen to show iteration of the detecting and
highlighting. (Answer 6-7). Nothing in Theisen teaches or suggests drawing
linkages among nodes that have been determined to be inter-related to a node
whose representation had a proximity event detected about it. Like Hodgson,
Theisen draws links for the model itself and does not draw additional links in
response to such detecting. Therefore, we find the examiner's arguments to be
unpersuasive. Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 8,
9, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wills, Hodgson and
Theisen.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013