Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
referring to column 4, lines 6-53, and Figs. 1 and 3 (R3; EA4).
The examiner finds that the steps of applying first and second
filter criteria as recited in paragraphs (c) and (d), and the
steps of displaying of paragraphs (e) and (f), are met by the
"find tool" which displays previously read e-mail messages in the
background, which the examiner considers a first lens, and unread
e-mail messages in the foreground, which the examiner considers a
second lens (R3-4; EA4).
Initially, appellant argues that it is unclear from the
examiner's rejection what elements correspond to the "information
elements" and what correspond to the "lenses" (Br10). Appellant
argues that if the examiner's position is that the documents in
Lucas correspond to information elements, and that the find
function that separates a strand into sub-strands is the filter
function, Fig. 9 of Lucas does not disclose first and second
lenses, where first and second filter criteria are applied to the
information elements for displaying different filtered sets of
information in each of those lenses (Br10). It is argued that it
appears that all of the documents, including those in each
sub-strand defined by a find tool are displayed in the same
window or lens (Br10).
The examiner responds that "lenses" or windows in Lucas
contain "information elements" or data (EA11). The examiner
refers to documents 100a to 100e in Fig. 9 as "windows" (EA11).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007