Appeal 2007-0474
Application 10/692,885
1 would like to see, upon our review, Knutson as a whole, discloses a system
2 and method that includes a folder management subsystem that manages a
3 plurality of folders (FF 12-14) and stores InfoFrames, e.g., hyperlinks, into
4 such folders (FF 9-11) based on user defined data types and the relationships
5 between the data types (FF 6-7). Thus, Appellants’ reliance only upon the
6 Examiner’s specific citation of Knutson does not overcome the prima facie
7 case of anticipation whereby a single reference, Knutson, discloses every
8 claimed element, albeit in other portions of the reference that may not have
9 been specifically cited. Anticipation of a claim under § 102 is found if the
10 prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.
11 For example, Appellants define preferences as conditions and/or
12 actions (FF 1-2). Knutson specifically discloses user-defined conditions
13 (FF 8) and the ability of the user to select and specify parameters for
14 InfoFrames (hyperlinks) (FF 10).
15 Thus, it is our view that Knutson discloses a plurality of folders
16 comprising links to particular data files stored in the data storage
17 component, the content of the folders controlled at least in part by end-user
18 specified preferences, and that the folders include any type of link collection
19 defined by a set of relationships, as set forth in claim 1.
20 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
21
22 Obviousness Issue
23 (B) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
24 rejecting representative claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
25 unpatentable over Knutson, Watters and Saxe. This issue turns on
26 whether it would have been obvious to include writing user
27 preferences…, executing user preferences…, and taking action based
28 on a conditionally valid preference.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013