Appeal No. 2006-2177 Page 13
Application No. 10/127,152
2. Obviousness Determination
By not disclosing the type of device on which it displays its "Elliott/Advertising –
Print Portfolio" window, (p. 223), we find that Siegel invites the use of any type of
electronic device. For its part, Abbott "relates generally to computer user interfaces,
and more particularly to various techniques for dynamically determining an appropriate
user interface. . . ." (¶0002.) The latter reference teaches displaying user interfaces on
"computers, network devices, internet appliances, PDAs, wireless phones, pagers,
electronic organizers, television-based systems and various other consumer products. .
. ." (¶0035 (emphasis added).)
Because Siegel invites the use of any type of electronic device, and Abbott
discloses displaying a user interface on a PDA, we find that those skilled in the art
would have been motivated to employ a suitable device, including a PDA, to display
Siegel's window. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 25 and of claims 3, 4, 14,
15, and 26, which fall therewith.
III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1-33 under § 103(a) are affirmed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013