Appeal No. 2000-1913
Application 08/753,081
Notwithstanding these considerations, Figure 5 of Bartok
shows selected graphical objects representing functional objects
associated with hotspot objects within the template of Figure 3.
The template 92 in Figure 5 shows various hotspot objects
generally as element 96. Hotspot object 170 corresponds to the
telephone icon 70 in Figure 2, where the telephone hotspot 170 is
further detailed in Figure 6. To the extent the artisan would
surmise from the teachings and suggestions of Bartok that the
Figure 5 representation, for example, is inclusive within a
window 48 on screen 46 of physical display device 14 in Figure 1,
there is no indication at all in Bartok that the expanded object
210 in Figure 6 of the hotspot telephone object 170 in Figure 5,
is shown of such size as to be indicative of the removal of areas
of a standard window generally associated with its depiction in
Bartok.
We therefore remain unpersuaded of the obviousness of the
subject matter of representative claim 1 on appeal based upon our
study of Bartok and the examiner's arguments with respect to this
reference. As such, the decision of the examiner rejecting
representative claim 1, as well as the corresponding independent
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007