Appeal No. 97-1227
Application 08/163,416
10, line 64, to column 11, line 13, reveals that when removing
a window display the host need not send the underlying panel
data back to the local processor for display because the local
processor did not at first, when originally creating the
window on display, send to the host the underlying panel data
for storage.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and
3 as being anticipated by Eagen and claims 2 and 4 as being
unpatentable over Eagen cannot be sustained on the basis of
the examiner’s stated rationale regarding what data is stored
in the host. Additionally, the rejection of claims 2 and 4
cannot be sustained because the examiner has cited no prior
art which reasonably would have suggested to one with ordinary
skill that the appearance of the cursor changes as it enters
and leaves an action field within the display. Eagen’s
generally teaching a "full range" of cursor controls
nonetheless still fail to reasonably suggest changing the
cursor’s appearance as it enters and leaves the action field.
New Grounds of Rejection
under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Unpatentable over Eagen
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007