Appeal No. 96-2141
Application 07/965,590
The major dispute between appellants and the examiner
revolves around the feature of independent claims 1 and 26 that
each text I/O status indicator has a first displayed state
indicating that the task has text output that has not been
displayed yet to the user on the screen and a second visually
displayed state for indicating that the task is requesting text
input from the user’s terminal. The examiner’s view among the
collective teachings of Cliff and Noguchi is that Cliff
essentially teaches that his graphical indications on screen of
programs awaiting user input may have been “better represented”
as a graphical display as per Noguchi’s approach which also shows
an icon display arrangement for a program indicating task
completion. These respective features of the two references
appear to be argued to relate to the corresponding two displayed
states in the independent claims on appeal.
Although we may agree with the examiner’s view that the
visual output to the user may be better represented by Noguchi’s
approach, the actual analytical approach taken by the examiner is
to pick and choose features of the respective references to put
them together into a single system as represented by the claims
on appeal. Our detailed study of both references lead us to
conclude that there is no teaching or suggestion or inferences
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007