Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
argued that there is no evidence asserted by the examiner as to
the motivation to combine the references (Br18).
The examiner responds with the same reasoning as applied to
claim 18 (EA13).
The rejection does not address the limitations of "the first
and second information elements associated with a common concept
in the body of knowledge" and "highlighting the first information
element displayed in the first lens in response to the user
selection of the second information element in the second lens."
The examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. We do not see how the limitations can be met by the
references. The rejection of claim 20 is reversed.
Group C(3): claims 89 and 94
Rowe and Acrobat Reader do not cure the deficiencies of
Lucas with respect to the rejection of claim 65. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 89 and 94 is reversed.
Group D: claim 92
WordPerfect does not cure the deficiencies of Lucas with
respect to the rejection of claim 65. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 92 is reversed.
- 17 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007