Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
We also note that Appellant discloses,
[i]n addition to container objects, a given object can
also be dragged to a service object. Referring to
Figure 3B, the file 54 can be dragged onto an icon 62
which represents a printer. As an alternative, the
file 54 can be dragged onto an icon 64 that represents
a word count service. When the file is dropped onto
the printer icon 62, it causes the contents of the file
to be printed at a particular printer associated with
the icon. When it is dropped on the work count service
icon 64, an application is launched which counts the
number of words in the file, and reports the results of
the count to the user. Whenever either of these
services is performed, the dropped object remains
intact, i.e., it is not consumed by the service.
(Emphasis added). See page 7, lines 17-27 of the
specification.
Finally we note that Appellant discloses,
[t]he specific action that is performed is determined
by the destination for the dragged object. If the
destination is a container object, such as any of the
examples illustrated in Figure 3A, the dragged object
is moved from its original location to the destination
object. Alternatively, if the destination object is a
service provider, as illustrated in Figure 3B, the
associated service is carried out with respect to the
dragged object, but the perceived location of the
object does not change. In other words, in the example
of Figure 3B, the icon 54 returns to its original
location in the window 52. See page 7, line 30 through
page 8, line 5 of the specification.
Therefore, interpreting Appellant’s claim in light of the
disclosure, we find that the scope of Appellant’s claim 1
includes: first) determining whether the second object is either
a service object (i.e., an object that provides a service result
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007