Appeal No. 97-1355
Application 08/072,826
The examiner incorrectly found (answer at 5), however, that
aside from the absence of selection of a scrubber container, the
only difference between the claimed invention and Petaccia is the
claimed invention's dropping of one container into another. The
pertinent limitation of claim 1 is this: "dropping said scrubber
container onto at least one other user selected container
displayed on the computer system, said at least one other
container having stored therein a plurality of documents." The
appellant has not simply claimed the dropping of one container
into another. Instead, the claimed invention requires the
dropping of a particular kind of container, the "scrubber
container" which is associated with a predefined user designated
criteria for deletion, into a container containing documents.
The examiner has overlooked an important difference between
the claimed invention and Petaccia. In the claimed invention,
the predefined user designated criteria for deletion is a
characteristic of and associated with the scrubber container. As
claimed, a user first selects the scrubber container and then
drops the scrubber container into a document holding container.
When that occurs, the system automatically searches for documents
satisfying the criteria for deletion. In contrast, Petaccia does
the reverse as will be explained below.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007