Appeal No. 2000-2148 Page 7
Application No. 08/935,704
II. Obviousness of the Claims
The examiner asserts, "Hocker et al (Hocker) teach a method
for indicating interrelationship between icons wherever
information on the relatedness of icons is desired (col. 1,
lines 62-67)," (Examiner's Answer at 4), and also relies on
“Mashruwala's teaching of displaying connecting lines between
related object for indicating interrelationship of the objects. .
. .” (Id. at 5.) The “[a]ppellants admit that the prior art
references cited by the Examiner indicates [sic] that it was
known in the art at the time of the invention to detect
relationships between files upon receiving user input indicating
selection of one of the files and displaying lines between icons
representing objects (not files) in a graphical interface,”
(Appeal Br. at 3), but argue, “the ‘references only provide a
patchwork of teachings that can be combined to meet the recited
limitations only by filling in the gaps after reading the
application.’” (Id.)
“Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed?” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d
1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Claims that
are not argued separately stand or fall together. In re Kaslow,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007