Appeal No. 97-2477
Application 08/212,908
library varies with the particular application, and Watkins
allows the application of any circuit component on a graphical
display screen. In our view, the appellant’s argument is
misplaced. It appears that the appellant has overlooked a
very important detail with regard to Dunn, i.e., that there is
a distinction between an end user and a methodology designer,
and that an end user who is not a methodology designer also
uses the system as created by the methodology designer. While
it is true that Dunn’s system allows the end user who is
himself the methodology designer to create a variable number
of descriptor icons, an end user who is not the methodology
designer has to work with whatever library of descriptor icons
that was previously created by the methodology designer and
may not himself add to the library. See Dunn from column 3,
line 61 to column 4, line 18. Thus, at least in one intended
mode or environment of operation, for end users who are not
methodology designers, Dunn’s system relies on fixed and
limited number of usable descriptor icons.
Secondly, the appellant argues that neither Dunn nor
Watkins discloses descriptors or icons which depict a digital
device solely at the behavioral level. (Be. at 7). In that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007