Appeal No. 1997-1253
Application No. 08/165,430
said windows; and
altering said display of said windows within
said graphical user interface in response to a selection by a
user of a particular one of said graphic elements within said
depth control object to display a selected window
corresponding to said particular one of said graphic elements
and each window relatively positioned beneath said selected
window.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Bloomfield et al. (Bloomfield) 5,412,776 May 2, 1995
(filed Dec. 23, 1992)
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Bloomfield. The final
rejection of claims 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been
withdrawn by the examiner [answer, page 4].
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007