Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
the teachings of Lucas with Rowe and Acrobat Reader because Rowe
teaches the random access of document pages (R9; EA10).
Appellant argues that neither Rowe nor Acrobat Reader
discloses the display of actual content within the "icons" or
"thumbnails" and, thus, neither reference suggests the
coordinated manipulation of one lens that displays information
elements in response to another lens that also displays
information elements (Br16). It is also argued that Lucas does
not suggest that the display of information in one lens can be
controlled by manipulation of another lens (Br16). It is argued
that the documents in Lucas have very little, if any,
relationship with one another and manipulation of one document
would likely have little meaning in the context of what other
documents are displayed (Br17). Appellant argues that even if
the references did individually suggest each recited feature of
claim 18, there is no suggestion of combining the references as
suggested by the examiner (Br16).
The examiner responds that "Rowe teaches display of a first
window or lens displaying icons with miniaturized display of
content corresponding to the content of a document located in a
second window .... Acrobat Reader teaches the selection of the
content of the miniaturized document icon or lens, and displaying
the same location in a magnified manner, in a second window ..."
(EA13). The examiner concludes that this would have suggested
- 13 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007