Appeal No. 2004-1443
Application No. 09/559,695
Appellants respond that the examiner is replacing the
claimed limitation “same manner” with the limitation “some
manners.” Appellants argue that the recitation “same manner”
requires that all of the functions that can be performed on an
entry must be capable of being performed in both lists of
entries. Appellants argue that the inability to perform a delete
in Hawkins through the call history list indicates that the user
is not able to manipulate the entries in the call history list in
the same manner as the entries in the address book (reply brief,
pages 1-2).
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 or of claims 2 and 4-9 which depend therefrom
for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs.
We particularly agree with appellants that the examiner’s
interpretation of the term “same manner” in claim 1 is incorrect.
Thus, we agree with appellants that the correct interpretation of
“same manner” in claim 1 requires that a device be capable of
performing every manipulation that can be performed in the all
category on the entries in the recently accessed category. In
other words, if a function which can be performed in the all
category, such as delete, cannot be performed in the recently
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007