Appeal No. 1999-1591
Application No. 08/665,616
Appellants argue that the flowchart of Cline and the corresponding disclosure make
clear that the reshaping done by Cline is done by user intervention. (See brief at page 4-
5.) In response, the examiner states that the portion of Cline cited by appellants is directed
to the setting of the preference and therefore, the examiner concludes that this argument is
not persuasive. (See answer at page 4.) We disagree with the examiner. The portion of
Cline cited by appellants does refer to the reshaping. Rather, step 520 of Cline teaches
the setting of the preference by the user. Therefore, the examiner has not responded to
appellants' arguments with respect to user intervention, and we agree with appellants that
Cline does not teach or suggest “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” as recited in independent claim 12.
Since appellants have shown error in the examiner’s presentation of a prima facie
case of obviousness and the examiner has not responded to appellants' arguments with
any showing or convincing line of reasoning, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 12.
Nor will we sustain the rejection of independent claim 14, which contains similar limitations,
and dependent claims 13 and 15.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007