Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
At page 3 of the answer, the examiner does not directly respond to appellants’ argument but, in
discussing claims 40 and 41, makes reference to portions of Bronson’s disclosure which by implication
meet the limitations of the claims.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 40-45. Anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984). Appellants are correct that
Bronson does not remove a window in response to completion of a drag operation within a window as
required by these claims. At the completion of Bronson’s drag operation, the window is already
removed and, thus, cannot be removed in response to completion of a drag operation. Furthermore,
Bronson does not disclose the requirement of “…completion of a drag operation within the particular
window”. For example, in Figure 2 of the reference, when the particular window 22’ is dragged off of
screen 10, it cannot be said that there is a completion of the drag operation within particular window
22’ or within any other window. Bronson’s drag operation is simply across a screen and not within a
window.
The Rejection of Claims 46-57
under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 over Bronson
Because independent claim 48 includes the same requirement as claim 40, that requirement
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007