Appeal No. 96-0542
Application 08/025,603
e. said user dragging said selected first item to a
second window, said second window under control of a third
process; and
f. said third process determining if said second
window can accept said first item based upon said first
information or the second information.
The examiner relies on the following references:
O’Connor et al. (O’Connor) 4,780,883 Oct. 25, 1988
Peters et al. (Peters) 5,157,763 Oct. 20, 1992
Future Enterprises, Inc. (Future) "A Microcomputer Education
Course For: QUATTRO PRO 3.0," 1991, page 16.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Peters
in view of Future with respect to claims 1-10 and 14-20, and
adds O’Connor with respect to claims 11 and 13.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007