Appeal No. 1996-0951 Page 7
Application No. 07/880,793
Regarding the novelty of claims 1, 2, 4, and 20-22, the
appellant argues, “nor do Kodosky et al. disclose a technique
for defining a user interface and associated messages and
generating a program which implements user selections from the
user interface.” (Appeal Br. at 6.) In response the examiner
states that he “does not understand precisely where Kodosky
fails in this regard.” (Examiner’s Answer at 10.)
We cannot find that Kodosky teaches the messages of
claims 1 and 20. A prior art reference anticipates a claim
only if the reference discloses expressly or inherently every
limitation of the claim. Absence from the reference of any
claimed element negates anticipation. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d
473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 1 and 20 recite in pertinent part “displaying for
each of said plurality of features a list of messages for said
each feature and displaying for each of the listed messages a
list of the functions which are consistent with said each
message” and “designer selection of one of the listed messages
and one of the listed functions for said each feature ....”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007