Appeal No. 97-1227
Application 08/163,416
display data generated by said application programs to said
local processor,
said local processor including means for receiving said
window display data and drawing respective application
windows, each of said application windows containing at least
one subarea window within its perimeter,
said application programs designating at least one of
said subarea windows as an action field through which a user
may access a respective application program,
means for storing said respective application program
window display data and said corresponding action field in the
local processor memory, and
means for storing remaining display data in the remote
processor memory.
Opinion
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Eagen.
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eagen.
Our opinion is based only on the arguments raised in the
appellant’s briefs. Arguments not raised by the appellant are
not before us, are not at issue, and are considered as waived.
In the reply brief on page 4, the appellant states:
This division of storage [feature] is
fundamental to applicant’s invention and is clearly
recited in the last two paragraphs of applicant’s
claim 1. (Emphasis in original.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007