Appeal No. 1998-3063
Application 08/632,223
space or spot may represent plural levels of a hierarchy. Meisel does not take this approach in
his interface for the display.
Meisel teaches a plurality of isolated or discrete objects corresponding to the hierarchy
of objects and not to a plurality of objects “owning display space encompassing the hot spot”
as recited in the “passing” and “determining” clauses of representative claim 1 on appeal. The
user interfaces are architecturally different. Although Meisel does have teachings of menus
and sub-menus that the examiner corresponds to the claimed objects and child objects, Meisel
does not have the child objects in the same sense as the disclosed and claimed invention.
Meisel does not have child objects within the display space occupied by a parent object. The
disclosed and claimed interface operates differently upon a same or similar type of
hierarchical arrangement of objects than that taught and shown in Meisel.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007