Appeal No. 2002-1771
Application 09/204,914
menu 6 of Fig. 2. Since this is clearly not the case, there is
not even a suggestion of the present claimed invention."
The examiner responds (EA5): "CENTER & RADIUS is clearly
selected in response to monitoring user interactivity with the
CIRCLE object displayed on the screen of Figure 3 in Siefert (see
column 2, line 59- column 3, line 5). Note that claim 1 does not
require the set of high interactivity objects to be exclusively
selected from the initial set of interactive objects displayed ."
(Emphasis added.)
Appellants dispute the underlined statement by the examiner,
arguing that "since the initial plurality of displayed
interactive objects are monitored for high activity, and the set
of high activity objects are selected in response to said
monitoring, then the selected set of high activity objects must
come from the initial plurality being monitored" (RBr2).
We agree with appellants' claim interpretation, although
this does not appear to be what is shown in appellants' drawings,
i.e., none of the high activity files in window 54 in Fig. 3 are
displayed simultaneously in the underlying windows at levels 50,
51, 52, and 55. The "high activity files" in Fig. 3 are also
depicted using WindowsTM folder (directory) icons instead of file
icons, which is a little confusing. While it seems that an
"interactive object" which is "representative" of a file could be
a folder (a directory or subdirectory) representative of the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007