Appeal No. 95-4629
Application 07/831,953
Borland, Quattro® Pro User Manual, p. 235-250; 1989
Microsoft Windows 3.0 User Manual, p. xi-xvi, 20-22, 46, 157,
®
and 494; 1990
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(a) as being anticipated by Microsoft . All claims also
®
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Microsoft in view of
®
Borland as to claims 1, 2, 5 and 6. As to claims 3, 4, and 7
to 9, the examiner relies upon Microsoft in view of Norwood.
®
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers for
the respective details thereof.
Opinion
Generally for all the reasons expressed by the examiner
in the answers, and for the additional reasons presented here,
we will sustain all three prior art rejections of all the
claims on appeal. To round-out the examiner's detailed
analysis of the claimed invention and appellant's arguments,
we add the following.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007