Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
(object) "beta 1," the system determines that the second field
(object) is present on the user interface and data may be
entered within the edit window at a second location for the
second field (object). The system "determines if said second
object is present on said user interface" because it
interprets the TAB key as a command to go to the next field
(second object) on the user interface in the same way as
admitted prior art systems (specification, page 1) interpret
the TAB key as a determination that the next field is on the
user interface. Claim 1 does not define how the system
determines if the object is present on the user interface, so
recognition of the TAB key is one method of determining.
Claim 1 says nothing about skipping fields (objects) or
changing the order of appearance of fields (objects).
When the "next category" is selected from the menu, the
system determines that the second category (object) is not
present on the user interface and brings the second category
(object) to the user interface, e.g., bringing up the user
interface for the next category shown in figure 5i.
Appellants argue that hitting the TAB key or selecting
the "next category" from the menu is not the same as
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007