Appeal 2006-2496
Application 09/944,696
(Reply Br. 2). Although the originally filed specification does not contain
paragraph numbering, the relevant paragraph may be found at page 43, lines
15-27. We have reviewed the cited paragraph and the remainder of the
Specification and we find that Appellants have not provided a definition for
either “function of frequency” or “function”. Appellants apparently
recognize this omission, and attempt to rely on definition 5a of the term
“function” from Merriam Webster’s online dictionary (Reply Br. 1-2). We
are not convinced by this argument, particularly because definition 5b of
Merriam Webster’s online dictionary alternatively defines “function” as “a
variable that depends on and varies with another”. This definition is much
broader that the definition argued by Appellants, and we find that the display
of each version of an edit history accompanied by the date and time it was
saved “depends on and varies with” the frequency of change in that edit
history, since more versions will be displayed with date and time stamps
closer to each other when the frequency of change is higher. Accordingly,
the display in Microsoft ® Word 2000 is visually distinctive as a function of
frequency of change in the edit history. Since Appellants’ argued definition
is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
“function”, we decline to incorporate the argued “mathematical
correspondence” into the claimed function which has also not been disclosed
as such.
Regarding the second stated rejection of dependent claims 11, 16, 30,
39 and 42, since these claims contain substantially identical subject matter,
we will treat claim 11 as representative. Appellants argue that the “ls”
reference “may show how to [display the versions of a plan or workflow in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013