Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
For these reasons, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation. The rejection of
claims 15 and 16 is reversed.
It also appears that Lucas is missing more limitations than
the application of different filter criteria to a plurality of
information elements, and the resulting display of different sets
of filtered information elements in different lenses. For
example, the examiner does not explain how the e-mails in Lucas
represent a "body of knowledge stratified into a plurality of
levels of abstraction" and have "first and second levels of
abstraction" and "a hierarchical arrangement of the first and
second levels of abstraction." The specification describes that
"[a] level of abstraction typically relates to a particular
manner of looking at a given collection of information, also
referred to as a body of knowledge" (specification, p. 2). The
e-mails may be completely independent of one another and not
represent a level of abstraction. The examiner refers to a "3D
display of document levels" (EA3), but does not explain how a
"level," which is just the location of a document in a pile, is a
"level of abstraction." While the examiner has found a three
dimensional workspace with objects arranged generally
perpendicular to the strand, these other limitations have not
been addressed. Nevertheless, we address only the arguments
actually presented by appellant.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007