Appeal No. 1997-4354
Application 08/177,296
removed from the element (window 12) upon selection of the
portion. We are not persuaded that the above teaching of the
reference meets the claim limitation. Moving an object or thing
in an element is not the same as removing it from the element.
Whereas we will not sustain the rejection of claim 16 as
anticipated by Diefendorff for the above reason, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 19, which depend therefrom,
on the same statutory ground.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 18, which depends
directly from claim 15, as anticipated by Diefendorff. This claim
relates to a user manipulable button within the portion.
Diefendorff has no teaching of such a button within portion 16.
We have concluded that the rejection of independent claims 1
and 8 as anticipated by Diefendorff should not be sustained.
Starting with the first recitation of the body of claim 1, the
examiner contends the limitations of the claim are met as follows.
Window 12 of Figure 1 of the reference is the graphical user
interface element and window 14 is the window. The interface
element 12 is temporarily removed from the window 14 when window
14 is brought to the top of the display. A selected area within
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007