Appeal No. 2004-1533
Application 09/100,223
does challenge the accuracy of the examiner’s finding that it was
well known to selectively display different result options based
on filtered (or sorted) considerations. We agree with the
examiner that the artisan familiar with managing databases was
well versed in providing output displays based on different
aspects of the database. Since we have found that Hotaling
teaches displaying data representative of the three different
options recited in claim 1, and since the obviousness analysis of
the selective display feature has not been challenged by
appellant on the merits, we find that the present record provides
adequate support for the examiner’s rejection.
With respect to independent claims 4 and 6, which are
grouped together by appellant [brief, page 4], the examiner
essentially makes the same findings discussed above with respect
to claim 1. Although appellant nominally argues that these
claims stand or fall separately from claim 1, appellant makes the
same arguments we considered above with respect to claim 1
[brief, page 6]. Appellant also argues in the reply brief for
the first time that the system of Hotaling, unlike the claimed
invention, resides on a single server [page 7].
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007