Appeal No. 2002-2011
Application No. 09/163,643
Mantha to Burke, because of Mantha’s taught advantage of links
(linked lists), providing a more flexible data structure to hold
bookmarking references” (answer-page 5).
For their part, appellants argue that Burke may be
considered to teach two bookmarks related by affinity, but the
bookmarks are “only indirectly related through the common
category, rather than directly linked by affinity to another
bookmark via an affinity link” (brief-page 7). This argument is
not persuasive since it does not appear to be based on any
limitation in the claims. Claim 1 does not require any “direct”
or “indirect” relations between bookmarks.
Appellants also argue that Burke requires that a user
traverse through a hierarchy to display and navigate between
bookmarks and that this does not provide the same level of
intuitiveness as is provided by direct affinity links. Again,
this argument does not appear to be based on any specific
limitation of the claims. Accordingly, it is not persuasive.
Similarly, appellants’ argument that Maarek suffers from the
same drawbacks as Burke is not persuasive because no specific
claim limitation is cited as distinguishing over Burke and
Maarek.
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007