Appeal No. 2000-0358
Application No. 08/678,409
not represent access rights of the virtual input device. Appeal
Brief, page 5, line 25 through page 6, line 2. Rather, the
record is a data entry unit. Additionally, Appellant argues that
if the database system is the second object recited in claim 1,
then the acquisition of a new access right is not caused by an
interaction between the first object and the second object as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 11-17.
Appellant states that the database manager of Bly locks the
record automatically as disclosed in column 18, lines 4-12,
without interaction with the first object (lock icon 92).
The Examiner argues that the breadth of claim 1 anticipates
Bly. The Examiner states that Bly
"discloses selecting a new access right represented by
a first object 92, new access right representing a
predefined right to interact with another object 57
(col 16, lines 2-60) and associating new access right
with virtual input device by causing the first object
to interact with a second object representing virtual
input device (see col 17, lines 16-68)." Examiner's
Answer, page 3, lines 12-16.
Upon a careful review of Bly, we fail to find a disclosure
of a virtual input device acquiring a new access right by causing
a first object to interact with a second object representing
access rights of the virtual input object as recited in claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007