Appeal No. 96-1396
Application 08/176,335
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 1-15 particularly point out the
invention in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
are also of the view that the rejection as formulated by the
examiner does not support the obviousness of the invention in
the manner suggested by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse
the examiner’s rejections. Nevertheless, we add a new
rejection of independent claims 1, 6 and 11 using our
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-15 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The examiner’s
rejection states the following:
The recitation of "each of said
actionable objects represented by a
different icon, having data and
procedural information and being
operable independent of said menu bar
icon; and means for sending a
selection message to the one or more
associated actionable objects in
response to operator selection of the
menu bar icon" in claims 1, 6 and 11
is confusing since if actionable
objects are operable independent of
the menu bar icon, the actionable
objects will not have response to the
selection of the menu bar icon
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007