Appeal No. 97-3660
Application 08/055,802
portions which have changed. Thereafter, the new version is
displayed with the changed portions in highlight.
According to the appellants, the newly received and
updated versions of the data do not constitute a user-selected
record since no choice or particular action from the user is
involved. The examiner’s position, on the other hand, is
that because a user has some role in the selection of the type
of data to be displayed and then automatically continuously
updated, each new update is a user-selected record. Although
the examiner’s position is reasonable, it does not account for
the requirement in the appellants’ claims that user selection
of a record is made after the display of a first or current
record.
While it is true that the various steps recited in a
method claim do not necessarily have to be executed in
sequential order, we find that in the context of appellants’
independent claims 1, 3, 6 and 10, the step of enabling
selection by a user of a record must follow the display of a
first or current record. In particular, the first step
recited in claims 1, 3, and 6 is “initially displaying on the
data entry screen a logical master record as a current record
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007