Appeal No. 2001-2688
Application No. 08/735,619
Turning to the rejection of claims 56 and 59, Appellants
argue that the art fails to teach or suggest assigning an icon to
a point on a geometric structure having at least two dimensions.
See page 10 of the brief and page 8 of the reply brief.
Appellants' claim 56 recites
a computer memory for storing pictorial icons
representing each video segments, each icon being
assigned to a point of the geometric structure having
at least two dimensions; and
a monitor for displaying the pictorial icons
corresponding to at least a portion of the structure.
Similarly, claim 59 recites
a computer memory for storing pictorial icons
representing the data items, each icon being assigned
to a point of the geometric structure; and
a monitor for displaying the pictorial icons
corresponding to at least a portion of the geometric
structure.
As pointed out above, we have found that Clanton teaches
storing pictorial icons, each icon being assigned to a point of
the geometric structure having at least two dimensions. Clanton
teaches pictorial icons representing movies being placed on a
wall board, the wall board being a geometric structure and having
two dimensions. The icons are placed on the wall board and
assigned a particular point having two dimensions. Therefore, we
find that Clanton teaches all limitations as recited in claims 56
1818
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007