Appeal No. 97-2538
Application 08/280,907
A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not be
construed as an affirmative indication that the appellants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
We reject the appellants’ argument that Bloomfield ‘911
does not disclose a template area pane which displays only
template objects. Appellants submitted a series of screen
dumps using the OS/2 operating system to illustrate that
window 188 in the Bloomfield ‘911 reference can hold ordinary
objects as well. However, it has not been adequately
established that the version of the OS/2 operating system used
by the appellants is the same as that version of OS/2 which
was used in connection with the generation of Figure 7 in
Bloomfield ‘911. Moreover, the appellants submitted no
affidavit or declaration evidence in support of their
allegations concerning the OS/2 operating system, and mere
attorney argument does not take the place of evidence lacking
in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782, 193
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007