Appeal 2007-0436
Application 10/125,620
FINDINGS OF FACT
Evans discloses an error message “resulting from a combination of
values in [a] plurality of areas of [the] GUI” which is actually the same as
providing multiple selections and input processes (See figure 2).
Figure 2 of Evans shows GUI 100 where the user changes the value of
a user identifier prompt 102 in one field and inputs a password value into
input field 110. If the password value fails to correspond to the user
identifier value, error information 116 is then displayed (col. 3, ll. 65-67,
col. 4, ll. 23-40).
Thus, Evans discloses error information, in a plurality of selectable
areas of the GUI, resulting from a combination of values, i.e., a user
identifier and a password, that do not correspond.
Grillo discloses popups with multiple arrows and different messages
relating to different areas of the GUI (col. 9, ll. 39-45; col. 9, l. 59 through
col. 10, l. 7; Figs. 7B, 9B, and 10B).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A prima facie case of obviousness is established
when the teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell, 991
F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013