Appeal No. 96-3059
Application No. 08/170,569
Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221
USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner notes that Bates teaches the two “presenting”
steps. The examiner acknowledges that Bates does not teach
the two “displaying” steps of claim 1, but the examiner points
to the scroll bar and elevator of Cowart as teaching these
steps. The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to combine Cowart’s scroll bar and elevator with Bates’
collaborative display [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that there is no teaching or
suggestion in Bates and/or Cowart for providing a visual
location cue along a line parallel to an edge of the window
that indicates a relative location of a corresponding portion
of the shared data object displayed at a terminal associated
with a second user. In appellants’ view, Cowart might suggest
adding a scroll bar elevator to the window display of Bates,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007