Appeal No. 2000-0358
Application No. 08/678,409
the first object to interact with a second object
representing access rights of said virtual input
devices,
and claim 15 recites the limitation, "said computer system
comprising . . . a mechanism configured to cause a new access
right to be acquired by said virtual input device by causing the
first object to interact with a second object representing access
rights of said virtual input devices." Since both claims 8 and
15 include limitations addressing acquiring a new access right by
the virtual input device by causing the first object to interact
with a second object representing access rights of the virtual
input device, we also find that Bly does not disclose the
limitations of claims 8 and 15.
Therefore, we find that Bly fails to teach all of the
limitations of claims 1, 8, or 15, and thus claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9,
11-13, 15-16 & 18-20 are not anticipated by Bly.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17 and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner has not relied on the
secondary reference, Hullot, to teach or suggest the elements in
claims 1, 8 or 15 missing from Bly. As such, we also cannot
sustain the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, we find that Bly does not disclose Appellant's
claim limitation of "acquiring said new access right by said
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007