Ex parte CONRAD et al. - Page 4




               Appeal No. 97-1658                                                                                                  
               Application 08/075,278                                                                                              


                       logic that removes the particular window from the window region in response to completion of                
               a drag operation within the particular window, the drag operation comprising associating an object with             
               a cursor.                                                                                                           

                       The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:                                  

               Bronson                        5,305,435                      Apr. 19, 1994                                         
                                                                             (filed May 7, 1993)                                   

               Microsoft Windows, Version 3.1, copyright 1985-1992 Microsoft Corp.                                                 

                       Claims 40-45, 48-50 and 53-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by                       

               Bronson.                                                                                                            

                       Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18, 21, 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                      

               unpatentable over Bronson.                                                                                          

                       Claims 14, 15, 19, 20, 46, 47, 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable                 

               over Bronson and Microsoft Windows.                                                                                 

                       The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety of these           

               rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 14) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18)             

               and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 17).                                                                           

                                                      Appellants’ Invention                                                        

                       Appellants disclose a windows management display system.  In one method of windows                          

               management performed by the system, a user can open a window,  and then close it by clicking on a                   

               mouse so as to cause another window to appear on the display device.                                                

                                                                4                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007