Appeal No. 2006-2177 Page 7
Application No. 10/127,152
Portfolio" display window. We also agree with the examiner's finding, (Examiner's
Answer at 25), that because the area of the scroll bar is limited to that of the thumbnail
area, which is labeled "print" rather that the entire screen, the thumbnail icons and scroll
bar are "separate" from the rest of the window shown in the figure.
2. Descriptive Text Titles
The examiner finds, "Wilcox teaches an interface for cable television that
contains a scrollable component (Wilcox Figure 5, 120) comprising scrollable
navigational elements that can be text, image or combination thereof (column 21,
lines 63-67). . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 19.) He further finds, "The combination [of
teachings from Siegel and Wilcox] would allow a system to not only display images but
also display text in a scrollable navigation ribbon to a user. . . ." (Id. at 19-20.) The
appellants make the following arguments.
Siegel describes a user interface for displaying artwork on a marketing
services website. At the bottom of p. 223, Siegel shows a row of
thumbnails. The thumbnails are not descriptive text titles of user-
selectable information in a navigational ribbon. Instead, clicking on a
thumbnail would appear to simply display the corresponding image. Each
thumbnail is simply a miniature version of its corresponding image, not a
descriptive text title of user-selectable information. The intended purpose
of the user interface shown in Siegel is to display thumbnails of images
that when clicked display the corresponding image. To modify the
thumbnails of Siegel to no longer function as thumbnails, as suggested by
the Examiner, would clearly be counter to the intended purpose of Siegel.
(Reply Br. at 6.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013