Appeal No. 1999-2257 Page 8
Application No. 08/767,220
Accordingly, claims 25, 28-33, and 36-40 require inter alia
recognizing a user entry as a read mode request if it
corresponds to a section identifier and responsively
displaying at least some of a section of textual information
having the section identifier to which the user entry
corresponds.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the applied prior art. "’A prima facie
case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’" In
re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner admits, “Cassorla does not show read
mode ... requests.” (Examiner’s Answer at 3.) Furthermore,
Cochran’s state code, to which the examiner refers, is not a
read request. To the contrary, it is processed as a search
request whereby a database is searched for occurrence of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007