Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
In Figures 6A-6C, appellants disclose a further window management method. In that method,
a user executes a drag operation from object 600 along path 601 into the drawer window 602. The
user then moves the cursor along path 603 over identifier 604. By pausing over identifier 604, a
temporary window 605 is opened over the identifier as illustrated in Figure 6B. The user then
completes the drag operation along path 606 to place the object within the temporary window 605 as
shown in Figure 6C. At that time, the desk drawer D2 snaps shut. That is, window 602 is removed
from the window region of the display. All temporary windows except window 605 are removed.
The Rejection of Claims 40-45 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Bronson
At page 11 of their brief, appellants assert that the above claims require “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”, whereas
Bronson teaches removal of a window by dragging the window off of the screen. It is argued that 2
Bronson does not remove a window “…in response to completion of a drag operation within a
window.”
2This requirement is specifically recited in independent claim 40. Claims 41-45 each depend from claim 40.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007