Appeal No. 97-1227
Application 08/163,416
Claim 1 specifies that the window display data and the
action field are stored in the local processor. But the
action field as defined in claim 1 is a subset of the window
display data. Claim 1 recites: "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." In the context of appellant’s claim 1, to the
extent that it can be understood, then, no window display data
remains. Therefore, the host processor need not store any
display data, to satisfy claim 1. On this rationale, it does
not matter what the host processor stores, because it need not
store anything. And we have already determined above that in
Eagen, the local processor stores the entirety of the window
display which, of course, includes the subarea action field.
Thus, claim 1 is herein rejected as being anticipated by Eagen
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
With respect to claim 3 which depends from claim 1, the
examiner’s finding (Supp. Answer at 4) that Eagen teaches that
user input data is entered in one of the action fields has not
been challenged or refuted. Accordingly, claim 3 is also
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007