Appeal No. 96-0542 Application 08/025,603 e. said user dragging said selected first item to a second window, said second window under control of a third process; and f. said third process determining if said second window can accept said first item based upon said first information or the second information. The examiner relies on the following references: O’Connor et al. (O’Connor) 4,780,883 Oct. 25, 1988 Peters et al. (Peters) 5,157,763 Oct. 20, 1992 Future Enterprises, Inc. (Future) "A Microcomputer Education Course For: QUATTRO PRO 3.0," 1991, page 16. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Peters in view of Future with respect to claims 1-10 and 14-20, and adds O’Connor with respect to claims 11 and 13. Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof. OPINION We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007