Appeal No. 2004-0962
Application No. 09/234,255
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
1 through 10.
Marks discloses (Figure 3) a conventional progress
indication window that indicates the progress of a task. We
agree with the appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 12 and 18)
that the progress indicator disclosed by Marks does not disclose
information “in addition to the progress of the process” (claim
1) or “progressively revealing information in the first part of
the progress area” (claim 10).
Nielsen discloses that an icon can be blinked at several
different rates to convey different information (Figures 3A
through 3D; Abstract; column 4, line 63 through column 5, line
13). Nielsen is silent as to use of the icon as a progress
indicator. Accordingly, we agree with appellants’ arguments
(brief, pages 14, 15, and 19) that Nielsen neither teaches nor
would have suggested to the skilled artisan the use of the icon
display as a progress monitor, and that Nielsen fails to remedy
the inadequacies of Marks.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
6 and 8 through 10 is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007