Appeal 2007-1050
Application 10/058,360
Beginning at page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner details the
correlation of the teachings and showings in Deken to representative
independent claim 1 on appeal. The Examiner generally recognizes that this
reference does not teach that two distinct windows, one for help and one for
web page, are displayed. At page 10 of the Answer, the Examiner has
clarified this view by noting that Deken lacks multiple windows displayed at
the same time. The Examiner’s latter assessment is consistent with our view
of this reference which clearly does indicate to the artisan that the web page
and correspondingly desired, selected help information windows are
displayed, but not at the same time. We therefore speculate whether the
artisan would have considered the bulk of the independent claims on appeal
to have been obvious over Deken alone.
On the other hand, the Examiner’s reliance upon Berry clearly
illustrates the applicability of his teachings to provide help information when
called upon by a user, on the same screen as application programming
information is displayed. This is illustrated in figures 2 through 4 of Berry.
Notwithstanding Appellants’ urgings in the Brief and Reply Brief to the
contrary, the discussion partially relied upon by the Examiner but extending
from column 1 to the end of that column clearly provides advantages to the
artisan to have incorporated the simultaneous display capability of Berry
into a web-based or web page environment. This discussion makes clear
that the help information is related to the information displayed in the
corresponding application page at the same time. This is characterized here
as displaying information on a help screen as close to the operating point as
feasible. It is also characterized as contextual help provided both in a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013