Appeal No. 1999-1591
Application No. 08/665,616
4), the examiner has not addressed the specific limitations of claim 12 with respect to
“automatically altering said first borderless window to encompass only said remaining
related objects within said first group without extra space therein in response to said
deletion.” (Emphasis added.) We disagree with the examiner's position that there would
be editing of the data in either one of the modes of the GUI. For example, Cline discloses
that the original data is stored and may be restored if no scrolling of the data is desired to
view additional portions of the window of text. Cline does not discuss the storage of
modified data, but only discloses the re-display of the original window, not the original
window format for the modified data.
Furthermore, spanning columns 1 to 2, Cline discloses the desire to have a
technique that enables a user to modify the shape of a window so that the window is the
smallest possible size, yet continues to display its contents. Thus, in our view, this is a
system for a small display for viewing of the window(s) and not a system for modifying data
in the reshaped window.
In our view, at most, the system of Cline allows the user to modify data in the original
window and to then actuate the icon 305 to reshape the modified data. The GUI would
then reshape the data in the window, but if any changes were desired, the user would be
required to go to the original window and again actuate the reshape icon to reshape the
modified text.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007