Appeal No. 2004-1443
Application No. 09/559,695
accessed category, then the method of claim 1 is not met.
Whether the invention of claim 1 would have been obvious to the
artisan when the term “same manner” is interpreted in this manner
we cannot say because there are no arguments on this record by
the examiner in support of obviousness when the term “same
manner” is so interpreted.
With respect to independent claim 10, the examiner’s
rejection is basically the same as considered above with respect
to claim 1. Appellants argue that none of the cited art provides
the ability to display recently accessed entries in a manner such
that commands applied to the recently accessed entries have the
same results on the database record as commands applied to other
sets of displayed entries. Appellants note that in Hawkins the
delete command from the call history list does not remove an
entry from the address book (brief, pages 9-11). The examiner
responds with the same position discussed above with respect to
claim 1 (answer, page 9). Appellants respond that Hawkins does
not provide a delete command for its call history that produces
the same change in a record as a delete command in the address
book (reply brief, pages 4-5).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007