Appeal 2007-2514
Application 10/034,255
of references fails to teach or suggest including a hyperlink for each entry in
the reusable list, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 23, and
24. Thus, another issue is whether the Examiner's proposed combination of
references includes all elements of the claimed invention.
The Examiner (Answer 4) admits that "Huang fails to explicitly
disclose: receiving input from the user to create a reusable list of the
selected entries and to store the list in a system clipboard in response to the
input received from the user." The Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that
Outlook 2000 teaches creating a reusable list by copying selected email
entries. Then the Examiner states (Answer 4) that Barnes teaches copying
information to a clipboard to avoid disturbing the original.
Assuming that the combination of Huang and Outlook 2000 provides
for creating a reusable list of selected entries, we find no reason why the
skilled artisan would copy that list to a system clipboard. Barnes discloses
(Barnes 60) that in Windows, cutting information removes the information
from its original location and places it on the clipboard, whereas copying
information leaves the original alone and places a copy on the clipboard.
Thus, Barnes does not suggest using a clipboard to protect the original, but
rather teaches that copying rather than cutting preserves the original.
Nonetheless, even if the Barnes disclosure could be read as teaching that
copying to a clipboard leaves the original document undisturbed, the claimed
invention (for each independent claim) requires including a hyperlink with
each entry so as to link to "a current version of a document associated with
the hyperlink." Thus, the claimed invention allows original documents to be
modified, which seems to conflict with the Examiner's reasoning of letting
the original documents remain undisturbed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013