Appeal No. 1999-1570
Application No. 08/673,184
visual effects recited in the language of claim 1. Nor has the examiner provided any line of
reasoning why one skilled in the art would have desired to use “frequency of blinking,
degree of blinking and degree of fill of the icon.” Appellant argues that the examiner has
applied “classical hindsight.” (See brief at page 8.) We agree with appellant.
Furthermore, the examiner has not provided a teaching, suggestion or a line of reasoning
for modifying the teachings of Torres to include the claimed depiction of the independent
variable. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2
and 3. Claims 5, 15, and 16 contain similar limitations which are not taught or suggested
by the combination of Torres and Bronson. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claims 5, 15, 16 and dependent claim 20. With respect to the addition of
Alexander and Microsoft Mail, the examiner does not rely on the teachings of these
references to teach the deficiency in the base combination. Therefore, these teachings do
not remedy that deficiency, and we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6-12.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007