Appeal No. 2000-0829
Application 09/079,054
device”, and using that to produce a list of “options” when
the light is selected. Taylor does not teach this. (Brief
at 5).
According to the present claims, when the specific
light is selected, drop-down menus provide context on what
parameters, e.g. colors, are available. Claim 1 specifies
that when the light is selected, the user interface
determines “from said memory” information about the selected
lighting device including options which can be effected on
the lighting device and providing a selectable list of said
options which can be affected...”. Since a list is provided
based on context, the user is automatically told this kind
of information. In the example described above, the Artisan
has a different color palette than others, and hence this
different color palette could be displayed. (Brief at 6-7).
14. In response to the applicants’ arguments that Taylor
fails to teach storing and retrieving of options related to a
selected light, the examiner directs the applicants to passages
in Taylor which teach storing and retrieving of information of
individual lights. Specifically, the examiner argues:
Per Taylor et al, the system recognizes the type of the
object selected and retrieves from memory any previously
stored characteristics or other information describing that
object (col. 17, lines 45-52). Once the user has selected a
light to be defined as part of the model, the particular
type of light that has been selected is known (col. 28,
lines 52-56). (Answer at 6).
15. In the Answer, the examiner maintains that Taylor fails
to teach providing a selectable list of lighting options to the
user for effecting a selected light, but argues that such would
have been obvious as follows:
As for claim 1: In response to the argument that the
rejection is based on hindsight reasoning, the suggestion
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007