Appeal No. 2001-0374
Application No. 08/971,255
rejection of independent claims 1, 7 and 13, nor of claims 3, 4,
9, 10, 15 and 16 dependent thereon.
With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and
17, the Examiner further relies on Gennaro for teaching an
embedded menu in a web browser for displaying a plurality of
links (answer, page 8). Additionally, in rejecting claims 6, 12
and 18, the Examiner combines Nagai and Pitchaikani with Mayo
which discloses a representation of a relationship among entities
in a communications network based on their interface conditions.
However, neither Gennaro nor Mayo provide any teaching related to
the claimed selecting the attribute to be displayed and
activating a transient display of that attribute for a selected
time period and fail to overcome the deficiencies of Nagai and
Pitchaikani as discussed above. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18 cannot be
sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007