Appeal 2007-2128
Application 09/757,006
not “prior art” publications as to appellant, because the assertions appeared
on their face to be accurate and reliable, and because appellant failed to
proffer any evidence to support arguments to the contrary).
We will therefore refer to the printed file copy of MS Win as if a
printed publication, but remain cognizant that the printed file copy is not a
publication but evidence of a printed publication as contemplated by 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). In any event, Appellants have not questioned or contested
the statutory basis of the rejection. More important, Appellants have not
offered any evidence to show that the content of MS Win cannot be properly
applied against the instant claims.
With respect to claim 85, the Examiner reads the claimed “at least one
window” on window 120, as labeled by the Examiner in “Figure 1” of MS
Win. The Examiner finds that highlighted file 110 may be dragged and
dropped to window 120 to be recorded on a removable storage medium
(drive A; 130). The Examiner reads the claimed “control element” on
view/control element 210 (Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that the view/control
element enables a user to select from among a plurality of themes such as
“Large Icons” 220 and “Small Icons” 230. The Examiner reads the claimed
“recording control element” on the right click of a selection device (e.g., a
mouse) on an icon, such as file icon 140 (Fig. 1), by which the contents of
the file may be recorded on the removable storage medium. (Answer 3-4.)
Appellants submit that the claim 85 “control element” is “on” said
window that enables a user to select from among a plurality of different
themes. Appellants argue that the menu in Figure 2 of MS Win is not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013