Appeal No. 2006-1475
Application No. 10/021,728
appellants argue that the palettes in Sojoodi are not displayed in the manner recited in
claim 1. Appellants assert that the nodes displayed in Sojoodi in the palette at the end
of the hierarchy that the user navigates down are not suggested nodes at all, but
instead, are all the nodes in the category which the user requested to be displayed.
Appellants also argue that the nodes displayed in Sojoodi are not based on one or more
nodes that the user selected to include in the graphical program. Finally, appellants
argue that the examiner has taken one of the palettes displayed in figure 7 of Sojoodi to
mean the claimed second palette, but that such interpretation is not logically compatible
with the combination of elements recited in claim 1 [brief, pages 7-9]. The examiner
responds that on the basis of an ongoing activity of node entry in Sojoodi, a palette can
be repeatedly invoked after each item has been input by the user’s drag and drop
manipulation. The examiner asserts that when this happens, the completion of one
entry is the basis for the palette’s re-appearance, and within it are those further nodes
that are suggested as those from which the user may make a subsequent choice. The
examiner responds that the items appearing in Sojoodi constitute suggestions for further
entry based on one or more nodes that the user selected because the palette display
occurs subsequent to the completion of a previous node entry. Finally, the examiner
responds that it is the overall generation of the Sojoodi palette after sequential node
entry that meets the claimed invention [answer, pages 8-9]. Appellants respond that
there is no teaching or suggestion in Sojoodi regarding a palette having suggested
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007