Appeal No. 2002-0288
Application No. 08/883,241
tree structure and so cannot download documents in nodes on
levels that are in and between the root node and the node of the
deepest level designated on the tree structure.
We note that, in accordance with appellants’ grouping of the
claims at page 4 of the brief, all of the claims will stand or
fall together. Accordingly, we will focus our attention on
instant claim 1.
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, although we understand the
difference between the instant disclosed invention and the
devices of Sanderman and Hughes (the former having the capability
of varying the number of documents that are downloaded by
changing the designation of the deepest node level), we are not
convinced that claim 1 recites this possibly distinguishing
feature.
Appellants admit that Sanderman teaches that a hierarchical
nodal structure may be viewed but argues that Sanderman does not
teach designating a deepest node level of the tree structure.
However, while Sanderman may not vary the designation of a
deepest node level, it is clear that it discloses a “deepest”
node level. Therefore, whatever that “deepest” node level is
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007