Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
through the groups of products (step 406)." Appellants argue that the combination of
teachings would defeat the purpose of Cameron. We disagree with appellants. The
examiner is merely relying on the teachings of Cameron to more clearly show the user
interfaces which were known and to display a logo, image, description, etc. on the
screen and the use of OOP. We agree with the examiner that the display of at least
one of these would have been obvious. Specifically, we find that it would have been
obvious to skilled artisans to display the logo of the maker/marketer of goods on the
display of the system of Jacobs and that the logo would have to be stored.
Additionally, Cameron teaches and suggests the use of OOP at col. 5 where
Cameron states that
Order entry system 10 is preferably an object oriented system. With object
oriented systems, functions performed by the system are each
represented by an object. An object is a software packet containing a
collection of related data and methods for operating on that data. Each
method is made available to other objects for the purpose of requesting
services of that object. Each object includes a set of related sub-functions.
Accordingly, each object is preferably arranged as a structured collection
of sub-functions, while each function should be arranged as a structured
collection of objects.
Appellants argue that the examiner has relied upon hindsight to reconstruct the claimed
invention. (See brief at page 15.) We disagree with appellants. Appellants argue
neither Jacobs nor Cameron discloses the use of a logo as a sub-object. (See brief at
page 16.) We disagree with appellants. Since Cameron discloses the use of OOP at
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007