Appeal No. 1997-4354
Application 08/177,296
16-19 over Diefendorff on the same statutory ground should not be
sustained. With respect to the first three subprocesses of
independent claim 15, the reference teaches at column 5, lines 9-
31, selection of a portion 16 of an element of a graphical user
interface 12 (Figure 1) for customization, selection of a
function/feature
from window 14 to be added to the portion 16 of the graphical user
interface element 12, and placing the selected function/feature
from window 14 in portion 16. With respect to the fourth and last
recitation of claim 15, at column 9, lines 58-68, Diefendorff
teaches deleting a second function/feature (in a porthole) from a
portion 16
of the element. With respect to dependent claim 20, the reference
discloses modifying the position of a function/feature at column
6, lines 45-59, in that movement of a porthole to a new location
is described. As to dependent claim 21, Diefendorff teaches that
element 12 is a window.
With respect to dependent claim 16, the examiner relies on
Diefendorff’s teaching at column 6, lines 47-50, that a porthole
16 can be moved to a new location in window 12 to establish the
claim limitation to the effect that the portion (porthole) is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007