Appeal No. 97-1658
Application 08/075,278
Appellants suggest that claims 16-18, 21, 23 and 25-27 are allowable because they require
application windows for applications programs and enclosure windows for icons. However, these
kinds of windows are disclosed by Bronson. For example, see column 5, lines 42 and 43, for a
reference to application programs in windows, and column 1, lines 46-53, for a discussion of icons.
The Rejection of Claims 14, 15, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as Unpatentable over Bronson and Microsoft Windows
With respect to dependent claims 14, 15, 19 and 20 it is argued that the invention will
automatically remove tool palette and control panel windows in response to the selection of another
window. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed
invention. The above claims do not require removal of tool palette and control panel windows. It is
only required that the plurality of windows include such windows. However, even if there were such a
requirement, the rejection of these claims would be sustained. As noted above, Bronson has a general
teaching that an active window may be automatically displaced by opening another window. This
suggests that any window can be removed for another. Appellants’ contention that it is counterintuitive
to close a tool palette or control window upon selection of another window because the user will
typically want to continue using the window after selecting another window is not supported by any
evidence and is unpersuasive. Furthermore, even assuming the contention to be true, the fact that
ordinarily a screen operator would have preferred to preserve tool palette and control panel windows
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007