Appeal No. 2006-2177 Page 11
Application No. 10/127,152
image, and representing an item by image and text would have made the item easier to
identify than an item represented only by an image, we find that the teachings of the
references and the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art would have suggested
including text in a scrolling area. We are unpersuaded by the appellants' argument,
moreover, that adding text to a scrolling area "would clearly be counter to the intended
purpose of Siegel." (Reply Br. at 6.) To the contrary, we find that such an addition
would not have impeded the ability of a thumbnail to represent and to be used to select
a full-sized image. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 23 and of claims 1, 2, 5,
6, 12, 13, 16, 17, 24, 27, and 28, which fall therewith.
B. CLAIMS 7- 11, 18- 22, AND 29-33
Rather than arguing the rejection of claims 7- 11, 18- 22, and 29-33 separately,
the appellants rely on their aforementioned arguments. (Appeal Br. at 15.)
Unpersuaded by these arguments, we also affirm the rejections of these claims.
C. CLAIMS 3, 4, 14, 15, 25 AND 26
The appellants argue claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 25 and 26, which are subject to the
same ground of rejection, as a group. (Appeal Br. at 14-15.) We select claim 25 as the
sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the group. "With this representation in
mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013