Appeal No. 97-3660
Application 08/055,802
Opinion
The rejection of claims 1-14 as being unpatentable over
Snodgrass and Risberg cannot be sustained.
A reversal of any rejection on appeal should not be
construed as an affirmative indication that the appellants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
Each of claims 1, 3 and 6 recites the step of initially
displaying on the data entry screen a logical master record as
a current record with a default attribute. Claim 10 recites
the steps of (a) reading a first record, and (b) displaying on
the data entry screen the first record with a first character
attribute. Claims 1, 3, and 6 recite that each record
includes at least one data field, and claim 10 recites that
each record includes a plurality of data fields.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 then recite “enabling selection by the
user of one of a pending record or history record by timestamp
version as a selected record, and claim 10 recites “enabling
selection by the user of a second record.” According to all
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007