Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
(emphasis added)(column 25, lines 60-62). In addition,
remembering that a node can be a book or stack of pages,
Nielsen states, "but it is also possible to use icons or just
the names of the nodes." (bottom of page 129).
On page 19 of the Brief, Appellants state "Furthermore,
Levine does not disclose or suggest ‘a request area by which
an operator may specify a page in said stack to be a new
current page.’" As noted supra, this concept is taught in
Nielsen, and the rejection is based on the combination of
references, not each reference separately.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments regarding unmet limitations
of the claims, are not convincing as to the group 1 claims,
represented by claim 1. Accordingly we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 8(1), 9(1), 12(1),
24(1), 29(1), 30(1), 33(1), 34, 35, 37, 41 through 45, 57, 62
through 64, and 66.
With respect to the rejection of the group 2 claims, with
claim 5 as the representative claim, Appellants indicate the
same arguments used with respect to the group 1 claims apply
to the group 2 claims. We find these arguments unconvincing
for the same reasons noted supra in discussing the group 1
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007