Appeal No. 1998-2003
Application No. 08/440,246
Appellant's remaining arguments are directed to hypertext
links. Such hypertext links, however, are recited only in
independent claims 1 and 8, not in independent claim 4. Therefore,
we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 4. We also will
sustain the rejection of claim 5, since appellant has grouped it with
claim 4 (Brief, page 3).
As to the additional arguments for claims 1 and 8, appellant
asserts (Brief, page 7) that the rejection "fails to recognize that
both [where the hypertext links are placed and what they do when
activated] are very specific issues in the claimed present
invention." Appellant points to claim 1's recitation of hyperlinks
to structures represented in the area maps in the PDF file of the
database as claimed subject matter lacking from the combination of
references.
Adobe teaches (page 1) that PDF includes hyperlink capability
which is useful for interactive viewing. We above determined that
Steiner suggests interactive viewing with the user entry 38. Thus,
it would have been obvious to use hyperlinks for connecting to the
information requested with user entry 38 to assist in the interactive
viewing. In particular, the skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to place the hypertext links at the various
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007