Appeal No. 1999-1691
Application 08/531,812
installing a menu item for each of a plurality of such first application programs of the
key programs list into a menu of a second application program in response to the opening
of the second application program; and
executing one of the first application programs in response to the selection within
the second application program of the menu item associated with that first application
program, which menu item was installed into a menu of a second application program in
response to the opening of the second application program.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Allen et al. (Allen) 5,500,936 Mar. 19, 1996
(filing date Mar. 12, 1993)
Padawer et al. (Padawer) 5,220,675 Jun. 15, 1993
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Padawer. Claims 2-4, 8-10 and 14-16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Allen in view of
Padawer.
OPINION
We reverse generally for the reasons set forth by appellant at pages 5-10 of the
brief.
The preamble of representative independent claim 1 on appeal requires the
creation of dynamically constructed integration menus in a data processing system. This
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007