Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
(e) displaying the first set of filtered
information elements in the first lens; and
(f) displaying the second set of filtered
information elements in the second lens.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Rowe et al. (Rowe) 5,819,301 October 6, 1998
Lucas et al. (Lucas) 6,012,072 January 4, 2000
(filed January 5, 1996)
Acrobat Reader 3.0 screen capture, Adobe, pp. 1-3, 1996.
WordPerfect 6.1 screen capture, Corel, Fig. 1 and p. 1,
April 15, 1996.
Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Lucas.
Claims 65, 83-88, 90, 91, 93, and 95 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucas.
Claims 18, 20, 89, and 94 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucas, Rowe, and Acrobat
Reader.
Claim 92 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lucas and WordPerfect.
We refer to the non-final rejection (Paper No. 28) (pages
referred to as "R__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 30)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the supplemental appeal brief (Paper No. 29)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007