Appeal No. 1998-0015
Application No. 08/388,058
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Moore et al. (Moore) 5,506,897 Apr. 9,
1996
Claims 1 through 8 and 20 through 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Moore.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the brief and
the answer for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
The only argument presented by appellant is that column
23, lines 19 through 23 of Moore does not disclose a
“graphical user interface” (Brief, pages 6 through 8).
According to the appellant (Brief, pages 6 and 7):
Column [2]3, lines 9-13 indicate that “[t]he
client . . . provides a detailed street map with the
polygon service area of the service location drawn
on the street map . . .” Figure 13 shows what the
client provides. It is clear that the drawing
provided by the client indicated at 640 in Figure 13
refers to a drawing on a physical map designed to
communicate to the user of the Moore invention where
the boundaries should be placed. It does not imply
at all the use of a graphical user interface. The
information from the marked up street map provided
by the client is entered into the system as
described in the portion of the specification
referred to by the Examiner, namely, column 23,
lines 19-23. This interpretation of column 23 is
reinforced by the discussion relating to Figure 4.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007