Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
plurality of controls represent a sequence of the first set of
the plurality of task steps;
(c) receiving a second control signal selecting a first
control of the first plurality of controls; and
(d) displaying a second plurality of controls
representative of a second set of the plurality of task steps
generated in response to the second control signal, wherein the
second plurality of controls represents a sequence of the second
set of the plurality of the task steps.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Blowers et al. (Blowers) 6,298,474 Oct. 02, 2001
(filed Apr. 30, 1999)
Claims 1 through 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Blowers.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed December 23, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 11, filed November 26, 2002) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 13,
filed February 19, 2003) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 51.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007