Appeal No. 1997-2055
Application No. 08/175,873
slot container. Then, the two action objects (hold message
and send message) are executed in response to a single
abstract event (dragging the icon over the clock and dropping
it in the outbasket) and result in an occurrence of the two
units of behavior (holding the message until a specified time
and sending the message at the specified time.)
As we have viewed the reference differently from the
examiner, we consider appellants' arguments as they would
apply to our interpretation. Appellants contend (Brief, page
5) that if Haynes is regarded as disclosing two action
objects, then the activities do not occur in response to a
single abstract event, but, rather, occur subsequent to
multiple events. According to our interpretation, the
abstract event corresponds to dragging the icon over the clock
and dropping it in the outbasket, or rather moving the icon
via a particular path. The movement, thus, is a single event.
Accordingly, we will affirm the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 over Haynes.
Regarding claim 2, appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that
Haynes "fails to show or suggest in any way the creation at
execution of a new abstract event," as recited in the claim.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007