Appeal No. 1999-2723
Application 08/674,082
even if the artisan sought to move notes across boundaries as
suggested by Johnston, the artisan would not apply that
teaching to notes as taught by Darnell. Since the notes in
Darnell are associated with the title of the window to which
they are attached, the notes could not possibly be moved like
a paper note because they are available (opened) only as a
function of the associated window being opened. Thus, notes
moved to a new document would not be visible when the new
document in Darnell was opened. As noted above, Darnell
contemplates no movement whatsoever of the notes created
therein.
Since appellants’ arguments have persuaded us that the
rejection of claim 1 is in error, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or of any claims which depend from claim
1 and are subject to this same rejection. Since the remaining
independent claims 25, 107 and 151 contain limitations similar
to those discussed above with respect to claim 1, and since
the same arguments are presented with respect to these claims,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 25, 107 and 151 or
of any claims which depend from these claims and are subject
to this same rejection.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007