Appeal No. 2000-0358
Application No. 08/678,409
column 17, lines 16-68, the Examiner has provided little guidance
regarding what the second object is. According to column 17,
lines 57-59 of Bly when an entry is made, this action prevents
other users from also entering the record. Also, a further
discussion of the locking function is found in column 30, lines
33-38 of Bly. This portion describes the lock icon 92 appearing
when a user selects the "lock" command 47. Thus, some form of
interaction between objects 47 and 92 exists. However, this
interaction does not cause an acquisition of a new access right.
Rather, this interaction prevents others from concurrently
modifying an entry. Also, if the "lock" command were viewed as
the second object, the command represents an "accelerator" to
lock an entry as disclosed in column 30, lines 42-43 and not an
access right of the virtual input device as required by claim 1.
As such, we concur with the Appellant that Bly does not
disclose the 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.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's elected first
object (lock icon 92) does not represent a new access right as
required by claim 1. Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 18-22. "[T]he
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007