Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
As reasoned supra, we have found that Nielsen and Levine do
disclose the features of the stack representation claimed, and
that the "request area" is found in Nielsen. We note,
however, that no "request area" is recited in representative
claim 67. Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
the group 10 claims, that is claims 67 and 70, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to the group 1 claims.
With respect to the group 11 claims, Appellants state
"The method of claim 68 comprises two sets of features in the
alternative, each of which corresponds generally to respective
features recited in independent claims of Group 1 and Group
2." (Brief-page 27). Thus, for the same reasons we sustained
the Examiner’s rejection of the group 1 and group 2 claims, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the group 11 claims,
that is claim 68.
With respect to the group 12 claims, Appellants state:
[C]laim 69 recites a combination of
features that comprise the features
discussed above for the claims in Group 1
and Group 2; . . . In addition, claim 69
recites the features of a document name and
a navigation bar. The Office Action points
out that, in Figure 8.2 of Nielsen, a name
is placed above each miniature. As
discussed above, the Office Action does not
26
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007