Appeal No. 2001-2381
Application 09/025,155
We agree with appellant that the windows of Slotznick do not
equate to multitasking applications as claimed. The examiner’s
finding that Slotznick teaches that windows equate to
applications is not supported by the referenced portion of
Slotznick. Specifically, the reference merely notes that when
information from the Internet is downloaded to a window, that
window automatically becomes the active window and is displayed
on top of all other windows [column 3, lines 28-34]. This
portion of the reference clearly does not establish that a window
is an application. The invention of Slotznick simply permits
different information received from the Internet to be displayed
during interstitial space. The different information displayed
in Slotznick is retrieved by the same communications application
and this information does not interact with other applications
running on the computer in any manner. Thus, we find the
examiner’s attempt to interpret the two display windows of
Slotznick as the claimed multitasking applications to be an
unreasonable interpretation of the claimed invention and
unsupported by the cited prior art.
Although appellant has separately argued the
patentability of some of the dependent claims, there is no need
to separately consider these claims since the discussion above
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007