Appeal 2007-1050
Application 10/058,360
be consistent with the Examiner’s views presented before us for decision
based upon Deken and Berry, further in view of Dazey as to all claims on
appeal. Moreover, we made similar observations in the paragraph bridging
pages 6-7 in the prior decision noted earlier.
It is this simultaneous display of help information in a help window
with web page information that is initially urged as Appellants’ contribution
in the art, as noted earlier, in the Summary of the Invention beginning at
page 2, line 18 of the Specification as filed. This is discussed at
Specification page 6, line 19 through page 7, line 2 and shown in figure 2.
Likewise, figure 3 shows element 36, which is discussed at page 8, line 21
through line 27. This simultaneity feature is also summarized at the end of
the Specification page 15, lines 13 and 14. This same capability is also
emphasised in the discussion of the overview of the invention beginning at
page 13 of the principal Brief on appeal as we noted earlier and argued as a
basis of patentability in the Brief and Reply Brief.
The significance of all of this is that only one independent claim of all
the claims recite positively this capability. Claim 19 merely provides the
execution of browser help information simultaneously with a page obtained
from the browser. This does not require the simultaneous display of the
information, however. All other independent claims do not require this
simultaneous display capability. Therefore, the Examiner’s application of
the prior art is even more applicable to the claims than as generally argued in
the Brief and Reply Brief. Taken in this light, most of the claims on appeal
would appear to read on the admitted prior art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013