Appeal No. 1999-2716
Application 08/561,178
improper hindsight [reply brief].
After a careful review of the entire record before us,
we agree with the position argued by appellant. Although we
do not agree with all of appellant’s arguments noted above, we
do agree with the argument numbered 2) above and find it to be
dispositive of this appeal.
The independent claims recite that the query dialog
box displays a plurality of parameters associated with the
text data objects, values for these parameters and a space for
selecting a sort order from the displayed parameters. The
examiner views the invention as basically nothing more than
the screen shown on page 86 of the Feature Guide with the sort
button of that screen replaced by whatever screen is brought
up by pressing the sort
button. In other words, the examiner views the invention as a
trade off between clutter within a given screen or window and
the use of additional screens or windows. We are of the view
that the claimed invention requires more than this mere
substitution based on clutter.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007