Appeal No. 96-0542
Application 08/025,603
We consider first the rejection of independent claims
1 and 17 as unpatentable over the teachings of Peters in view
of Future. These claims stand or fall together [brief, page
5]. Peters teaches a graphical user interface in which data
items in one window can be selected and dragged to another
window. The interface outlines the item as it is being
dragged to visually convey to the user that such operation is
occurring. Future teaches that Quattro Pro is one application
program that can automatically recognize files from other
applications and translate such files to Quattro Pro format.
The final rejection asserts that the data translation
teachings of Future when combined with Peters would have
suggested the invention of claim 1.
Appellants provided a reasoned analysis as to why the
collective teachings of Peters and Future would not have
suggested steps (c), (d) or (f) of claim 1 [brief, pages 5-8].
The examiner rephrased the rejection by attempting to read
claim 1 on Peters. The examiner proposed that the first
process was Peters’ marking process and the first information
was the type of data. The examiner further proposed that the
"word processor" of Peters’ spread sheet program was the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007