Appeal No. 1999-1591
Application No. 08/665,616
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Cline et al. (Cline) 5,546,520 Aug. 13, 1996
(Filed Sep. 30, 1994)
Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Cline.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
final rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed Mar. 3, 1998) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
13, mailed Oct. 27, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 12, filed Sep. 15, 1998) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that Cline does not teach or suggest the automatic resizing of a
window in response to the deletion of an object from the window. (See brief at page 4.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007