Appeal No. 2000-1323
Application No. 08/923,474
collecting the information from a communication management server and displaying the
information by a graphical object representing the object image symbol. The examiner
then turns to Bayless for these teachings, referring to column 11, line 50, for the teaching of
defining a behavior for the created object image symbol without requiring written
programming code and referring to column 12, line 20, and Figure 6 for the teaching of
inputting telephone call information into a text box for representing the object image
symbol. The examiner points to Figure 7 of Bayless for the teaching of collecting the
information from a communication management server and displaying the information by a
graphical object representing the object image symbol.
Finally, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to “use of importing
tools, for example the invention disclosed by Bayless for that of Dilts, since this method
would provide friendly tools to the users” [sic] [answer-page 5].
For his part, with regard to claim 1, appellant argues, not that the combination of
Dilts and Bayless does not teach the claimed invention, but only that the examiner has
failed to point to any motivation for making the combination. In fact, appellant admits
[principal brief-page 7] that the combination of references “provide better tools to end
users” but complains that the examiner has not pointed to any motivation in either Dilts or
Bayless for combining these references in the manner suggested.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007