Appeal No. 96-2021
Application 08/004,016
We consider first the rejection of claim 29 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Nielsen. Nielsen was cited by
appellant as representative of the prior art. Like the claimed
invention, Nielsen teaches a method for providing hypertext link
services in a data processing system. Nielsen teaches that a
marker (footprint) can be displayed along with the link indicator
to indicate that the information associated with the link has
previously been visited. Nielsen also teaches that the marker
can be gradually faded to indicate the amount of time which has
passed since the link was last visited. Nielsen also teaches
that the actual time since a link was last visited can be
displayed whenever the link is actually visited.
Claim 29 recites that a date and time of a first
utilization of the link is displayed upon the selective user
actuation of a marker associated with the link without having to
actually go to the new location. It is the position of the
examiner that the faded version of the footprints in Nielsen
implicitly reveals date and time information, and the selective
display of such information upon user request would have been an
obvious design choice because such modification “presents no
novel or unexpected results and solves no stated problem”
[answer, pages 4-5]. Appellant argues that Nielsen teaches away
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007