Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
that Conrad discloses "linking" multiple screens for the
simultaneous display of large amounts of data, and there are
no second displays accessed or displayed by access criteria
applied to the first display. This linking is asserted to be
merely visual differentiation of a set
of data events in other data fields corresponding to data
events in a created region. Appellant equates this "linking"
to his "brushing" process.
Second, Appellant argues that the "linking" of7
Conrad involves a direct correspondence of data events, i.e.,
data events correspond when the identical data event appears
in two or more fields. Therefore, Appellant avers that there
is no suggestion or recognition by Conrad of independent and
dependent variables or relationships between the variables.
Third, Appellant argues that while Conrad does8
disclose a visual differentiation on the other data fields by
creating a "created region", it does not disclose a mutual
7Brief, page 7
8Brief, pages 8-9
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007