Appeal No. 1999-2615
Application No. 08/644,120
system in which the other property menu items in call up submenus when selected from
which various properties, such as type and style, can be customized” [answer-page 6].
The examiner also appears to take the position that the claimed “second internal control
object” may be met by Cain’s disclosure of an object inheriting “a particular behavior as
a result of its containership location” [answer-page 8].
We have carefully reviewed the examiner’s rationale for the rejection and the
examiner’s responses to appellants’ arguments but we are unconvinced by any of the
arguments or the rationale that either of the applied references, or the combination,
suggests the claimed “creating a second internal control object in response to said
selecting said control for said editing transaction, wherein said second internal control
object is a copy of said first internal control object.”
Since each of the independent claims requires this limitation, we will not sustain
the rejection of claims 31-73 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007