Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
performing a service with respect to said first object
if said first object is a service object; and
moving the representation of the first object from said
first location to a new location associated with said
second object if said second object is a container
object, regardless of a source of the first object.
In reviewing Appellant’s disclosure to understand
Appellant’s claim limitations, we note on pages 6-8 of the
specification that Appellant defines the service object and the
container object. Further, Appellant also uses examples to
define a first object and a second object, original locations and
destination objects (i.e., the first and second locations).
Specifically, Appellant discloses,
Figure 3A illustrates some examples of different types
of container objects that can serve as destinations for
a drag-and-drop operation. Referring thereto, a window
52 contains a file 54 which the user has selected with
a cursor. This file can be dragged to another window
56 on the desktop. Alternatively, it can be dragged to
a folder 58, which could reside within a window or on
the desktop itself. As a third alternative, the file
54 can be dragged into a text document 60 which might
be displayed in another window. Each of the objects to
which the file 54 is moved in the examples of Figure
3A, namely the window 56, the folder 58 and the
document 60, is a ‘container’ object. These objects
have the ability to embed objects within their
contents. (Emphasis added). See page 6, line 28 to
page 7, line 6 of Appellant’s specification.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007