Appeal No. 1999-1570
Application No. 08/673,184
35 USC § 102
Appellant argues that Pajak does not teach “setting visual characteristics of an icon
based on said keywords or phrases.” Appellant argues that Pajak teaches highlighting the
text or label associated with an icon as the result of a search rather than setting the visual
characteristics of the icon itself. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant. Since
Pajak does not teach the invention as claimed, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims
13 and 17.
35 USC § 103
Appellant argues that Torres merely adjusts the size of the icon (length, width and depth)
and also allows for another icon to be superimposed on top of the first icon to reflect
information contained therein. (See brief at pages 6-7 and Torres figure 4 and columns 4
and 9.) We agree with appellant. The examiner maintains that Bronson supplies the
missing teaching concerning “a level of each independent variable being respectively
depicted by at least one of frequency of blinking, degree of blinking and degree of fill of the
icon.” Specifically, the examiner relies upon the teaching of Bronson at column 4 which
teaches using color coding, patterning or blinking. Here, the examiner relies on this
teaching to generically suggest the use of some “alternative visual effect” to help visually
distinguish a particular window from another. (See answer at page 5.) From our review of
Bronson, we do not find any teaching or suggestion in Bronson with respect to the specific
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007