Appeal No. 2006-2177 Page 12
Application No. 10/127,152
focus on the point of contention therebetween." Ex parte Morris, No. 2005-0439,
2005 WL 4779247, at *3 (B.P.A.I. 2005).
The examiner makes the following findings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the
teachings of Siegel, Wilcox and Abbott before him at the time of the
invention was made, to modify the scrollable area taught by Siegel to
include text titles of Wilcox and the dynamic interface of Abbott, in order to
obtain a system that is able to be displayed on multiple types of electronic
devices without modification. One would have been motivated to make
such a combination because the desired ability to display a common
interface regardless of the device type as taught by Abbott.
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) The "[a]ppellants' argument . . . is that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have been motivated use a PDA to display high resolution images as
in Siegel at the time of Appellants' invention, not that the images could not be displayed
on a PDA." (App. Br. at 15.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 25 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said electronic device
is a personal digital assistant." Giving the representative claim the broadest,
reasonable construction, the limitations require displaying the aforementioned window
on a personal digital assistant ("PDA").
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013