Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
being logic that removes a particular window from the window region in response to completion of a
drag operation within the particular window, and dependent claims 46, 47 and 49-57 depend either
from claim 40 or claim 48, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 48 or any of these dependent
claims.
The Rejection of Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18,
21, 23 and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bronson
Appellants assert that these claims are allowable over Bronson because the method of
removing a window manually by “fast tab” (double-clicking) as taught by Bronson is entirely different
from removing a particular window from a window region in response to selection of another window.
It is argued that there is no suggestion or teaching in the prior art to modify Bronson in the manner
suggested by the examiner and that the modification of the examiner is “pure hindsight”.
We will sustain the rejection of these claims. The modification of Bronson which appellants
contend is necessary to render their claims unpatentable and which they argue against as not suggested
by the prior art is not essential to the rejection. No modification of Bronson’s method of removing a
window manually by “fast tab” is necessary because the reference specifically discloses that an active
window may be automatically displaced by opening another window. See SUMMARY OF THE
INVENTION, column 4, lines 43-53. As by way of example, the displaced window would appear as
a window 22’ illustrated in Figure 3 with the window tab along the screen edge, and the opened
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007