Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
However, the appellants have overlooked that the rejection is one
for obviousness based on 35 U.S.C. § 103, not anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
Hernandez discloses an interactive graphical object display
and editing system, wherein various editing functions can be
applied to multiple objects being displayed on the screen.
According to Hernandez, it is disadvantageous to have the editing
function choices displayed in a fixed area on the bottom of the
screen well removed from the location of the graphical objects.
From column 2, line 67 to column 3, line 2, Hernandez states:
The operator should not be required to move the
point of action from the graphic object to the bottom
of the screen and back to the object merely to select a
different editing action.
To achieve the above-stated goal, Hernandez displays its menu of
editing functions wherever the user places the cursor on the
screen (column 5, lines 39-42). According to Hernandez, the
editing function menu is usually displayed in a blank area of the
screen (column 5, lines 37-38). Thereafter, Hernandez selects
one of the displayed editing functions and then places the cursor
next to that graphic object to which the selected editing
function will be applied so that the object can be selected
(column 5, lines 43-64). Figure 4 illustrates where the editing
menu is displayed in one particular instance.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007