Appeal No.2002-1765
Application No. 09/182,091
graphical user interface, it is unclear how that GUI relates to “facilitating the processing
of documents by a printing system,” as claimed. Barker isn’t even directed to a printing
system. The claims further require that the display have a “selected portion in which an
information set pertaining to said processing of documents,” i.e., documents processed
by a printing system disclosure of which Barker is devoid, is displayed.
Elements (b) and (c) of independent claim 1 (and certain portions of independent
claim 9) are directed to “a memory manager” with certain defined functions. Now, the
examiner recognizes that Barker lacks such a feature and so the examiner turns to
Lewchuk for a teaching of a memory manager. At page 4 of the answer, the examiner
contends that Lewchuk discloses a system “including priorities for memory operations”
and that a fetch priority level is higher than a prefetch priority level. The examiner then
concludes that it would have been obvious “to include Lewchuk’s teachings in Barker’s
invention because it facilitates the transfer and the display of different types of
information in different portions of the display screen and it reduces latency” (answer-
page 4). The examiner does not explain how or why a teaching of priorities for memory
operations would be applicable to Barker’s editing apparatus. In any event, we
disagree with the examiner’s combination for various reasons.
First, Lewchuk does not remedy the deficiencies of Barker noted supra.
Moreover, Lewchuk may disclose a memory manager in the sense that certain priority
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007