Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request rehearing of our decision entered
September 3, 1999.
We have reconsidered our decision in light of Appellants'
arguments, but are not persuaded of any errors therein.
Therefore, we decline to make any changes in our prior
decision.
OPINION
Appellants argue that we overlooked or misapprehended
limitation d) of claims 1 and 11 in sustaining the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 11 over Davis. In
particular, Appellants argue that Davis does not teach
"determining if said second object is present on said user
interface . . .," as provided by limitation d). We stand by
our decision.
We interpreted the terms "object" and "location," as
applied to claim 1, as follows (Decision, page 4):
In terms of claim 1, a particular field (e.g., "alpha 1,"
"beta 1," etc.) in a category (e.g., category
"Outline/first") is an "object" and the category itself
(e.g., category "Outline/first" or "Outline/second") is
also an "object." Thus, going from field "alpha 1" to
"beta 1" in category "Outline/first" is a move from a
first object to a second object. Also, going from field
"alpha 1" in category "Outline/first," shown in figure
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007