Appeal No. 2005-0871
Application 09/248,736
they are available to reflect the previous selections.
The examiner argues that the appellants’ disclosure that
“[t]he changes would have to be saved, for example, with the
“Save” action 1411 and the contents of the object which had been
selected 1607, may change as appropriate” (page 14, lines 18-20)
pertains to saving the tree objects, not the filter (answer,
page 4). In the immediately preceding portion of the
specification the appellants disclose that the filtering criteria
may be changed by the user if different criteria are desired, and
that those changes take effect when the user clicks on the “OK”
button (page 14, lines 16-18). Thus, the sentence quoted by the
examiner pertains to saving the filtering criteria.
The examiner correctly argues (answer, page 4) that the
appellants disclose how a new customized tree can be saved
(page 14, lines 1-4). However, in the above-cited other portions
of the specification the appellants disclose saving a filter and
specified selection criteria.
The examiner argues, based upon a dictionary definition,
that saving requires transferring data from a computer’s random
access memory, where the data is vulnerable to erasure, to a
storage medium such as a disk drive, and that the appellants do
not disclose that their filter and specified selection criteria
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007