Appeal No. 1997-1253
Application No. 08/165,430
desktop. Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 13 and 15 or of claims 14 and 16 which
depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 17, appellant argues
that Bloomfield does not meet the claimed recitation of
accessing a desired window without changing the hierarchy of
windows [brief, pages 11-12]. The examiner considers the
indented listings of windows 106 and 110 of Bloomfield as
meeting this claim limitation. We again agree with appellant.
The windows showing indented information in Bloomfield have
nothing to do with the hierarchy of windows on the desktop.
If an open window is selected in Bloomfield to become the
active window, that selected window moves to the top of the
order and the hierarchy of the windows on the desktop is
changed. The graphical user interface of Bloomfield does not
permit the user to access a window without changing the
hierarchy of the windows. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 17 or of claims 18-21 which
depend therefrom.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of any of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007