Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
documents by scanning does not meet these limitations because the
scanning is not user input to an input element in the three-
dimensional workspace. We conclude that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 65, 83, 86, 93, and 95 is reversed.
Group B(2): claims 84, 87, 88, and 90
Group B(3): claims 85 and 91
The rejection of claims 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, and 91 falls
with the rejection of parent independent claim 65. The rejection
of claims 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, and 91 is reversed.
Group C(1): claim 18
Claim 18 is directed to the method including coordinated
scrolling between two lenses to display the same location in a
body of knowledge, so that multiple representations of that
location can be concurrently displayed to a reader (see
description at Br5-6; Figs. 23 and 24).
The examiner finds that the preamble and paragraphs (a) and
(b) are the same as claim 15 and are rejected for the same reason
(R8; EA9). The examiner finds that Lucas fails to disclose the
limitations of claim 18 in the last paragraph beginning at
"wherein." The examiner finds that Rowe and Acrobat Reader teach
selection of an icon in one window to display a page in a second
window and concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007