Appeal No. 1997-3130
Application No. 08/483,772
arrangement of documents.” We agree. Appellants also argue
(Brief, page 6) that “Beard expressly states that a document
icon can be associated with a folder icon by moving the
document icon over the folder icon and releasing it with the
mouse but the document icon is not displayed within an open
folder view of the folder icon, but rather, only the titles of
the documents are listed in the open folder view of a folder
icon,” and that “Yoneyama does not disclose nor suggest an
open holder view of a holder 100 and the documents associated
with the holder are listed in a directory that is located
outside of and separate from a
holder . . . . ” We agree. Lastly, appellants argue (Brief,
page 8) that:
The Examiner contends, incorrectly, that
because Yoneyama’s office metaphor presents
realistic pictures of office elements within
each descending view within a plurality of
graphical user interface views, it would have
been obvious to extend Yoneyama’s metaphor
down one more level to include a stacked
arrangement of realistic images of documents.
This extension of Yoneyama is possible only by
virtue of hindsight.
We agree.
In summary, Beard’s icons 64A and 64B are not partially
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007