Appeal No. 1997-3433
Application 08/395,548
explicit teachings in Thessin et al., together with general
information on OLE (e.g. as per the Microsoft Object Linking
and Embedding reference)." (Br6.) Therefore, Appellants
address the combination that should have been made.
Appellants' description of the teachings of Thessin
together with Microsoft OLE in Figure C of the Attachment and
Table C (Br7) is considered a very fair summary and goes
beyond what is readily apparent from Thessin. We appreciate
Appellants' candor and the work it took to prepare these
comparison figures. We analyze claim 1 by comparison to
Figure C and Table C.
The step of "receiving notification that the first
application has submitted material to the clipboard on the
first computer" is very broad, as appreciated by the Examiner
(EA9). In our opinion, the clipboard itself satisfies this
step because it knows when material has been submitted. We do
not agree with Appellants' argument (Br9) that the step of
"receiving notification" requires the clipboard to perform a
step of "sending notification" to the conferencing software
(as shown in arrow 2 in Figure A of the Attachment) or
elsewhere. "Receiving notification" could be in response to
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007