Appeal No. 2004-2250
Application No. 09/542,154
With respect to claims 8 and 16, we also remain unconvinced
by Appellants’ argument that changing something is different from
generating an alert (suppl. brief, page 9) since the claims
merely require that an alert signal be received and generated
which, in turn, alters the icon. As pointed out by the Examiner
(answer, page 18), as long as the icon on Nielsen is visually
modified with a plurality of lines and catches the attention of
the user, the reference suggests the claimed alert signal which
alters the icon. Thus the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 8
and 16 over Brown, Kikinis, Namma, Humpleman, Gerba and Nielsen
is sustained.
Finally, turning to the rejection of claim 9, Appellants
assert that Anderson, as relied on by the Examiner for teaching
enlarged icons, only does so for editing of the icon (suppl.
brief, page 10). Again, weighing the opposing arguments, we find
ourselves unpersuaded by Appellants’ position that the
combination is flawed because enlarging icons for editing is
different from enlarging them for giving a more detailed view of
the icon data to the user (id.). We note that the claim merely
requires enlarging the icon which, as asserted by the Examiner
(answer, page 19), is taught by Anderson which also provides to
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007