Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685
capability within a broader organizational graph in terms of its
superior and subordinate capabilities. There is also a need for the user
to be able to maintain the context of components within an
organizational model in terms of the respective position of that
component in a structured hierarchic view of the organization.
(Col. 1, lines 44-52).
Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive as to the lack
of evidence to combine the references.
As to whether the combined references actually would result in the claimed
invention, however, we cannot agree with the examiner’s arguments. The
examiner argues that
Hodgson shows (Figs. 1, 2 and 4) the nodes (12) having linkages or
inter-relations (14), wherein detecting a proximity event about a node
in the tree map and highlighting the nodes and drawing a linkage in
the tree map between nodes. See column 1, lines 19-42; column 3,
lines 23-27; column 4, lines 40-62; and column 5, lines 1-19.
(Answer 4).
We reviewed Hodgson, particularly the sections noted by the examiner,
looking for the claimed subject matter identified by the examiner and found
Hodgson lacking. Hodgson essentially describes presenting two different
graphical displays of the same organizational information, and, when a node in one
of the displays is selected, highlighting the respective representation of that same
node in the other display. (Col. 5, lines 10-19). While Hodgson does indeed
portray linkages among nodes (ref. 14 in figs. 2 and 4), these linkages are merely
part of the model itself, and not linkages drawn among nodes that have been
determined to be inter-related to a node whose representation had a proximity
event detected about it, as required by claim 1. And while Hodgson does highlight
two representations of the same node, one of whose representations had a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013