Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
headings, wherein each of said plurality of phrases corresponds
to an operation in said particular set of operations;
said user selecting one of said displayed phrases using said
selection means;
said CPU displaying at least one presentation window that
contains instruction data related to said selected phrase on said
display in response to said user selecting said one of said
displayed phrases, said instruction data indicating how to
perform the operation that corresponds to said selected phrase.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
WORDPERFECT for Windows v. 5.1, WordPerfect Corp., screen
pp. 1-28 (1992). 2
Claims 1, 2, 29, 30, 59 and 60 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by WORDPERFECT. All
remaining claims on appeal, claims 3 to 15, 17, 19, 31 to 43, 45
2The examiner and appellants utilized the examiner’s
notation of screen pages in this reference to identify the pages
referred to in the rejection. These are located at approximately
the middle of each separate page of the reference. However, the
bottom of each page shows a sequential numbering of pages from 28
to 55, which indicate to us that all of the pages come from a
single prior art reference. Inasmuch as there appeared to be
three different substantive sub-topics in this single reference,
they comprise the File Manager for Windows, the WORDPERFECT
version for Windows and the Program Manager for Windows.
Respective screen pages 20 and 28 indicate the publishing date as
being in 1992 as noted by the examiner. Inasmuch as the
examiner’s screen pages or the page numbers identified at the
bottom of this reference indicate that it came from a single
reference, we properly consider it as a single reference within
35 U.S.C. § 102 in accordance with the first rejection set forth
by the examiner. Appellants have not challenged the nature of
this reference.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007