Appeal No. 1998-2603
Application 08/483,641
16 and 17. Group III includes claims 13 through 15.
Therefore, we will consider claim 1 as representative of group
I, claim 16 as representative of group II and claim 13 as
representative of group III.
The Examiner reasons that MsWin teaches the claimed
invention except for dynamically positioning the graphic
objects within a region. Noting that Beard describes means
for controlling the location of graphic objects, the Examiner
concludes that Beard provides dynamic positioning of graphic
objects. The Examiner cites an example in Beard as having a
file folder icon representing a region which may have plural
objects associated with its location (answer-pages 3 and 4).
The Examiner states:
It would have been obvious to provide the
dynamic positioning of graphic objects as suggested
by Beard with the MSWIN system. This would have
been obvious for the reasons given in Beard. For
example, it establishes a hierarchy or ranking of
the graphic objects (icons) which can be changed in
position according to applications, dependency on
other graphic objects, special circumstances such as
break icons or help icons, etc. Further, since
MSWIN allows for multiple windows (regions) each
with multiple graphic objects (icons) it would have
been obvious to provide the dynamic location of
these graphic objects so that a graphic object is
not obscured by another. [Answer-pages 4 and 5.]
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007