Appeal No. 1997-1253
Application No. 08/165,430
positioning of the windows in bottom to top order as recited
in the preamble of the claims is the same order in which the
graphical elements of the depth control object must be
arranged. In our view, Bloomfield clearly does not meet this
limitation of independent claims 1 and 7. Therefore, we do
not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 7 or of
claims 2-6 and 8-12 which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claims 13 and 15 which
stand or fall together [brief, page 5], appellant points to
Figure 5 of Bloomfield and argues that Window List window 106
of Bloomfield does not meet the relative depth feature as
recited in these claims [brief, pages 10-11]. We agree. The
examiner points to window 112 in Bloomfield’s Figure 4 as
meeting all the limitations of these claims [answer, pages 5-
6]. We fail to see how the Reports Settings window 112 of
Bloomfield determines the relative depth of overlapping
windows or constitutes a display of the relative depth of each
overlapping representation. There is no relationship in any
of the windows of Bloomfield between the depth of the open
windows on the desktop and a separate window for indicating
the relative depths of each of the open windows on the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007