Appeal No. 1997-2769
Application No. 08/138,649
in support of the rejection, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 12, filed April 22, 1996) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 18,
filed October 28, 1996) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
At the outset, we note that it is unclear to us how the
examiner proposes to combine the two systems. However,
assuming arguendo that the two systems can be combined, the
combination still fails to yield the claimed invention.
The claim requires "presenting, using icons, only the
highest existing severity level of said network events." The
examiner refers to column 1, lines 63-66, as evidence that
Welch discloses displaying only the highest severity level.
However, the cited portion of Welch merely states that in the
prior art only certain types of information could be
displayed, such as information related to the heart. The
cited portion does not suggest that only the highest severity
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007