Appeal No. 2006-2458
Application No. 10/147,673
demotion process of Robinson would involve shifting words that were not
displayed [id.].
We agree with the examiner that the language of the negative
limitation broadly reads upon a reference that discloses at least one entity
that is not presented to the user that does not have its value set when an
identified entity is identified (i.e., selected by the user) [claim 1]. As
pointed out by the examiner, the language of the claim does not require that
all entities not presented to the user do not have their values set when an
identified entity is identified (i.e., selected). In particular, we note that
Robinson’s disclosure of demoting words that are intermediate between
where the selected word started and finished does not support appellant’s
contention that other (non-intermediate) words in the list are necessarily
moved [Robinson, col. 31, lines 50-52]. As pointed out by the examiner, we
note that appellant uses the word “assumably” to support the proffered
contention that a vacant location would be filled [answer, page 12, ¶3, see
also brief, page 6, ¶3 and reply brief, page 2, §3]. With respect to the
example proffered by appellant, we note that promoting a word at index
location 2 to index location 1, and demoting the word at index location 1 to
index location 3 does not necessarily affect the words located at index
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007