Ex Parte Seshadri et al - Page 13

                Appeal 2007-0474                                                                                 
                Application 10/692,885                                                                           
           1    would like to see, upon our review, Knutson as a whole, discloses a system                       
           2    and method that includes a folder management subsystem that manages a                            
           3    plurality of folders (FF 12-14) and stores InfoFrames, e.g., hyperlinks, into                    
           4    such folders (FF 9-11) based on user defined data types and the relationships                    
           5    between the data types (FF 6-7).  Thus, Appellants’ reliance only upon the                       
           6    Examiner’s specific citation of Knutson does not overcome the prima facie                        
           7    case of anticipation whereby a single reference, Knutson, discloses every                        
           8    claimed element, albeit in other portions of the reference that may not have                     
           9    been specifically cited.  Anticipation of a claim under § 102 is found if the                    
          10    prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.                                        
          11           For example, Appellants define preferences as conditions and/or                           
          12    actions (FF 1-2).  Knutson specifically discloses user-defined conditions                        
          13    (FF 8) and the ability of the user to select and specify parameters for                          
          14    InfoFrames (hyperlinks) (FF 10).                                                                 
          15           Thus, it is our view that Knutson discloses a plurality of folders                        
          16    comprising links to particular data files stored in the data storage                             
          17    component, the content of the folders controlled at least in part by end-user                    
          18    specified preferences, and that the folders include any type of link collection                  
          19    defined by a set of relationships, as set forth in claim 1.                                      
          20           Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.                     
          21                                                                                                     
          22    Obviousness Issue                                                                                
          23           (B) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in                              
          24           rejecting representative claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                       
          25           unpatentable over Knutson, Watters and Saxe.  This issue turns on                         
          26           whether it would have been obvious to include writing user                                
          27           preferences…, executing user preferences…, and taking action based                        
          28           on a conditionally valid preference.                                                      

                                                       13                                                        

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013