Appeal No. 2001-2688
Application No. 08/735,619
Clanton is merely a visual display of certain movie selections on
a computer-generated background. Clanton does not teach or
suggest a computer database organized in the way that Appellants
have claimed.
Turning to Grossman, we find that Grossman also teaches
arranging icons in accordance to an XY coordinate on a display.
However, Grossman also fails to teach a database having logical
coordinates in at least two dimensions, wherein each selection is
assigned to a point on the logical coordinates in accordance with
its categories. Thereby, we fail to find that Grossman provides
a teaching or suggestion of the missing claim limitation.
Thereby, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Clanton in view of Grossman.
For the rejection of claim 4, the Examiner has relied on
Clanton and Grossman for the teaching of the above limitations.
See page 6 of the Examiner's answer. Thereby, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Clanton in view of Grossman and Strasnick for
the same reasons as above.
Similarly, for the rejection of claims 5 through 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Clanton in view of
1010
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007