Appeal No. 1998-2983
Application No. 08/481,230
With respect to claim 6, appellants argue that Maruo does not disclose or suggest
the “activating a control element in said first type of window to recreate said
second type of window.” We agree with appellants. While the examiner does not
address the language of claim 6, in the actual text of the rejection, the examiner discusses
claim 6 at page 14 of the answer. The examiner maintains that the language of claim 6 is
so broad as to read on starting a meeting a second time after the first meeting. (See
answer at page 14.) We disagree with the examiner since, in our view, this would not be a
recreating, but an initial creating of the window. Therefore, this argument by the examiner
is not persuasive, and we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 6.
With respect to claims 9, 15, and 18, appellants rely upon the argument with respect
to claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the claims fall with claim 1.
With respect to claims 10-12, appellants rely upon the argument with respect to
claim 1. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the claims fall with claim 1.
Appellants do not argue or discuss the combination of Maruo and IBM.
With respect to claim 7, appellants again argue the definition of a window in the
specification. We disagree with appellants. Clearly, the explanation mode selection
menu 505 of Maruo would have controls which allow the user to change the actual
drawing within the shared space/window. Therefore, we find this argument unpersuasive.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007