Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
Appellant argues on pages 5 and 6 of the brief that
Anthias fails to teach the claimed modified graphic orders.
In particular, Appellant argues that the claims recite, for
the list of modified graphic orders, a process to identify the
nonoverlapping portions of the lower priority window. Once
this has been identified, the nonoverlapping portions of the
first window are processed with graphic orders of the second
window to create, in one step, the list of modified graphic
orders without having to override any of the priority windows.
Appellant argues that Anthias is concerned with overlapping
windows without regard to the content of the windows and,
therefore, does not disclose or teach the creation of modified
graphic orders as recited in Appellant's claims.
The Examiner responds to Appellant's argument on
pages 5 and 6 of the answer. The Examiner argues that Anthias
discloses in column 3, lines 52 through 62, that an ordered
list is maintained of the active windows in priority order
thereof. The Examiner argues that Anthias therefore teaches
generating a modified graphic order list from overlapping
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007