Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
Rowe to be a first lens and the view window 39 to be a second
lens, and that selection of an icon in window 48 causes the
content of that page to appear in the window 39. From the
discussion of claim 15, the examiner finds the first and second
lenses in Lucas to correspond to two of the documents. There are
several problems. First, it is not apparent how or why the
references would be combined. Is the examiner's proposal to put
the display of documents from Fig. 9 of Lucas into the icon
window? If so, why? Second, if the combination has two windows
as shown in Rowe and Acrobat Reader, the windows corresponding to
lenses, why would the lenses be oriented in a three-dimensional
workspace along an abstraction axis? As with claim 15, we find
there are other limitations that are not addressed in the
rejection, but we have only considered the arguments actually
presented. We conclude that the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 18 is
reversed.
Group C(2): claim 20
Claim 20 is directed to a method of accessing information
from a body of knowledge including "concept highlighting," where
information elements that pertain to the same basic concept, but
defined at different levels of abstraction, may be linked
together and noted to a reader (see description at Br5; Fig. 29).
When one linked information element displayed in one lens is
- 15 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007