Appeal No. 1999-2615
Application No. 08/644,120
in a graphic user interface graphically presents objects to the user in the GUI and
providing facility for cutting and pasting object while preserving any attach properties
and methods” [sic] [answer-page 4] is not only so grammatically poor as to defy an
accurate understanding of the examiner’s position, but, to the extent that the examiner
is implying that a “cut and paste” operation applied to the Cain system would improve or
provide for anything, it is still unclear as to why any “cut and paste” property of Li,
applied to Cain, would have resulted in the instant claimed subject matter.
Appellants argue [page 8-principal brief] that Cain discloses none of the
elements recited in claim 31 except possibly “receiving first user input indicating a
desired change to said control.” In fact, referring to the portion of Cain cited by the
examiner, appellants contend that Cain teaches nothing more than the prior art over
which the instant claimed subject matter is an improvement and that the cited portion
discloses only that objects are placed in forms and the object’s properties are then
edited through a pop-up menu and a property window. We agree. There is nothing in
the cited portion of Cain, or any other portion of Cain, as far as we can tell, that
suggests the claimed “second internal control object.”
The examiner’s response is that the instant claims are broad in nature and that
the claimed requirement of a first internal control object and a second internal control
object created in response to the selecting of a control for editing “can be interpreted as
reading on Cain’s computer-implemented method for editing a control in a computer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007