Appeal No. 97-3660
Application 08/055,802
with a default attribute”. Thus, the display of the first
master record must precede each of the other steps recited in
those claims. As for independent claim 10, while the first
displaying step is not modified by the word “initially,” in
our view and in the context of the appellants’ specification
it is implicit that “displaying the first record” precedes
“enabling selection by the user of a second record.” The
appellants’ disclosed invention is concerned with active user
selection of a second record while a first record is on
display. In the circumstances of this case, an interpretation
which reads user-selection of a second record on automatic
continuous updates of real time data is unreasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-14
as being unpatentable over Snodgrass and Risberg cannot be
sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Snodgrass and Risberg is reversed.
This case is remanded to the examiner for clarification
and/or supplementation as to the role of the appellants’ own
admitted prior art on pages 1-2 of the specification in the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007