Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
"determining if said second object is present on said user
interface . . ." because (Req. for Reh'g, page 2):
Davis has no need to determine if the second object
is present on the user interface. This is because the
data is always entered into the same window 264. A field
pointer 266 determines which field is enabled for data
entry (column 12, lines 20-34) in the window 264. There
is no need for Davis to determine if the second object
(for example, a second field) is present on the user
interface because the window is already displayed.
We disagree with these arguments. Davis determines that
the next field (object) is present on the user interface in
response to pressing a TAB key in the same way as the admitted
prior art (specification, page 1) and determines that the next
category (object) is not present on the user interface in
response to a selection of the "next category" item from the
menu. Appellants have not explained, for example, why, when
there are multiple fields displayed on the user interface as
in Appellants' figure 2, pressing a TAB key in the admitted
prior art (specification, page 1) does not involve a
determination by the system that the next field is on the user
interface and why Davis does not involve this same
determination.
The argument that Davis has no need to determine if the
second object is present on the user interface because the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007