Appeal No. 96-3093
Application 08/046,880
through 29 and 41 through 49.
With respect to independent claim 23, the Examiner
contends that Day's examples in figures 3 to 10 suggest that
several selectable options can be displayed on top of the set
of selectable options as claimed. The Examiner also asserts
that Crandall, for example in figure 18, teaches that several
sets of selectable options can be displayed on top of the
first set of selectable options in a system such as Day's.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious, to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to
configure, in view of the teaching of Crandall, Day's system
as claimed. [Answer, pages 2 to 3].
Appellants argue that the suggested combination of Day
and Crandall would only produce the following result. If the
touch screen of Day were a calendar or the like in Crandall,
the user would touch a date, which would then be highlighted
for the user to put in certain notes. Appellants further
argue that one having skill in the art would not conclude from
these teachings that multiple screens overlying one another
would be created. [Brief, pages 7 to 8]. Appellants also
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007