Appeal No. 2006-3042
Application No. 10/720,494
Office Assistant feature that displays an animated paper clip icon responsive to
certain user actions).3 In any event, we cannot say that no better prior art exists.
We can say, however, that no such prior art exists on this record.
For the above reasons, the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
8, and 17 will not be sustained. We likewise will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 2 and 24-30 based on the disclosure of Amro.
With regard to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3-6, 9-14,
18, and 31, the examiner adds Wu to the teachings of Amro [answer, pages 5
and 6]. But since Wu does not cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to
independent claims 1, 8, and 17, the obviousness rejection of claims 3-6, 9-14,
18, and 31 over Amro and Wu is also not sustained.
3 See e.g., “Office Assistant,” Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_assistant (last
visited Dec. 1, 2006).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013