Ex Parte KENYON et al - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2002-1079                                                                                        
              Application No. 09/124,540                                                                                  

                     agent.  In the current version of Object Lens, two other kinds of automatic                          
                     triggers are available: Daily at Midnight, and On the Hour.                                          
              Malone col. 11, ll. 6-17.                                                                                   
                     After consideration of the entirety of the Malone reference, we agree with                           
              appellants that Malone fails to anticipate (i.e., fails to disclose each and every limitation)              
              of the claimed invention.  Malone discloses that, upon retrieving new mail, a link may be                   
              inserted into a New Mail folder.  However, the mere “fact that new messages are                             
              stored,” as alleged by the rejection, fails to disclose or suggest the step of “permitting a                
              user to create an information node in the overlay representing the digital information                      
              object.”  Although a link may be automatically, or manually, placed into a folder that                      
              relates to a new mail message, the examiner has not shown any further step disclosed,                       
              expressly or inherently, by Malone permitting a user to create an information node in                       
              the folder that represents the digital information object (i.e., the mail message).                         
              Moreover, we agree with appellants that Malone’s disclosure of identifying newly arrived                    
              mail does not teach, as presently claimed, determining if a digital information object                      
              includes at least one concept in common with concepts expressed in at least one                             
              concept node.                                                                                               
                     The statement of the rejection against independent claim 10 (Final Rejection at                      
              6) asserts that claim 10 “is essentially a combination of claims 1, 5 and 6,” and does not                  
              further address the limitations of claim 10.  Claim 10 is clearly different in scope from                   
              the invention of claims 1, 5, and/or 6.  We agree with appellants that the rejection fails                  

                                                           -5-                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007