Appeal No. 2006-2216
Application No. 09/741,038
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the brief (filed October 11, 2005), reply brief (filed
February 28, 2006) and the answer (mailed December 29, 2005) for
the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner relies on Gusack for
teaching substantially all of the claimed features related to
displaying information in the form of a virtual book image and on
Douglas for teaching displayed images of information other than
the chapter or section (answer, pages 3-4). Based on the
teachings of these two prior art references, the Examiner
concludes that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to
modify Gusack with the additional forms of information of Douglas
to provide users more ability to interact with the displayed
object (answer, page 4).
The focus of Appellants’ argument is that, contrary to the
claimed requirement of “different categories of information,”
Gusack and Douglas each describe displaying only one category of
information, i.e., basic tab or section information (brief, page
8). Appellants further assert that the information other than
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007