Appeal No. 2000-0150
Application 08/661,440
[knowledge base object editor], along with tokens such as PAGE
FORWARD, FORWARD LINK, etc.)." The examiner then states the case
for obviousness as follows:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to
display alphanumeric characters along with data
manipulation tokens, as taught by Kirk et al., in the
device of Fennell because in this way the user has the
ability to view an overall organization of the
information which more accurately describes the
contents of the information sources and makes editing
easier.
Answer at 4.
We agree with Appellants that the rejection is improper.
Assuming for the sake of argument that one or more of Kirk's
elements 608, 708, 610, 616, PAGE FORWARD, and FORWARD LINK can
accurately described as a "data manipulation token" in the sense
of Appellants' claims, the examiner's above-quoted proposed
motivation for adding one or more of these elements to the
information displayed by Fennell's pager is unconvincing because
Fennell's pager is not used to receive and store information of
the type received by Kirk's computerized information retrieval
system. Nor is there any apparent need to organize the
information received by Fennell's pager in the complex manner
disclosed by Kirk, i.e., in accordance with a knowledge base.
Finally, the examiner has not explained, and it is not otherwise
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007