Appeal 2007-1050
Application 10/058,360
line 12. The paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 recognizes that a so-called
help feature was simultaneously displayed with application information to
learn more about this application. The second paragraph at the top of page 2
indicates that corresponding help information was available with respect to
web pages but indicates that the help page hid or otherwise replaced the web
page to which it referred. Thus, the initial paragraph of the Summary of the
Invention at the bottom of page 2 of the Specification as filed indicates the
focus of Appellants invention was the application of the teachings of the
admitted prior art with respect to application programs being applied to
permit simultaneous display of help information and web page information
in a web-based environment. Appellants’ arguments as to topic A at pages
15 and 16 of the principal Brief on appeal essentially admit that Deken is
representative of the admitted prior art at Specification page 2, lines 5
through 12, and that Berry and Dazey of the first and second stated
rejections are further representations of the admitted prior art with respect to
the discussion at page 1, line 26 through page 2, line 4.
Based upon Appellants’ arguments in this context as well as our own
review of the admitted prior art disclosed at Specification pages 1 and 2, we
merely note in passing here that the artisan may have well found that the
subject matter of the present claims on appeal would have been obvious to
the artisan. Thus, the artisan would have found obvious to apply the known
ability to simultaneously display help information and application
information from an application program environment to a web-based
environment. Although we recognize that these observations of our own are
not the basis of the rejections before us, they are admitted by Appellants to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013