Appeal No. 1997-4354
Application 08/177,296
Furthermore, one would expect that window 14 of Diefendorff would
be displayed without graphical user interface element 12 in the
ordinary course of computer usage and, thus, the user-selected
representation would not be displayed within a graphical user
interface element 12 in that case.
Claim 8 requires means for displaying said user-selected
representation within said graphical user interface element
whenever said graphical user interface element is displayed. This
requirement is not met in Diefendorff essentially for the reasons
that the corresponding limitation in claim 1, considered above, is
not met. It is not established that a user-selected
representation is displayed within element 12 whenever the element
is displayed. In fact, Diefendorff teaches away from such a
function in that the reference teaches at column 1, lines 32-34,
“Sometimes it is desirable for an operator to be able to observe a
part of a particular window which is otherwise covered.”
Claim 8 is not rejected as obvious over Diefendorff and the
examiner has provided no rationale why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have modified the teachings of the reference to
provided the above means for displaying.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007