Appeal No. 1998-2983
Application No. 08/481,230
the screen can be divided into several windows, each of which has its own boundaries and
2
can contain a different document (or another view into the same document).” These two
definitions appear to agree with the examiner’s interpretation of “window” without any
associated control. We agree with the examiner that a “window” need not be required to
have any associated controls which direct the actions of the application.
With this said, we further find that any window from a MICROSOFT Windows
operating system which is opened on a computer screen necessarily would have some
controls associated with opening, closing or adjusting the window (whether or not the
controls are present within the window is a separate issue which we need not address
here). With respect to the location of the control of an application within a window, we
disagree with appellants’ implied argument that the claim language requires that there
be control associated with the window and the control must be within the window.
Specifically, dependent claim 6 recites activation of a control element in the first type of
window. Furthermore, to distinguish between each window having associated control,
independent claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 18 each recites a control region which specifically
requires the control functionality in one of the windows, but is silent with respect to the other
window(s). Therefore, we find that the language of the claims, given their ordinary and
A copy attached to decision.2
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007