Appeal No. 95-4629
Application 07/831,953
relied upon by the examiner. From our perspective, it
also appears in passing that the subject matter of claim 1 in
the correction means clause reads upon appellant's admitted
prior art since there is no requirement of this claim that the
image be automatically substantially centered or wholly
displayed within the display screen since the claim does not
recite any of these particulars. Indeed, the function of the
correction means to merely position the window image so that
the image area of the window image is displayed in the visible
area is broad enough to permit the movement of a window by a
user and still "protrude" beyond the display screen since the
entire or whole image is not recited to be displayed in the
claim. This understanding is derived from our earlier study
of the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 5 on appeal
and appellant's recognition at pages 1 and 2 of the disclosed
invention as to how the prior art figures operate. As to
claims 1, 5 and 9 on appeal, clearly, from the normal use of
the system shown in prior art Figures 1 to 4, the user may
optionally or conditionally choose to allow the display of a
protruded image from the display screen to remain or it may be
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007