Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
containers in Berry’s system, the “outcome is dependent upon
whether the source of the object is in the same workspace as the
destination for the object.” See page 7, lines 17-18 of the
Brief.
We fail to find that this limitation is set forth in
Appellant’s claim language of claim 1.
Further, Appellant argues that, “the operation performed on
the object being manipulated, in accordance with the present
invention, is a MOVE (when the destination is a container
object), whether or not the source document or media volume is
the same as the destination.” See page 7, lines 18-21 of the
Brief.
Again, we fail to find that this limitation is set forth in
Appellant’s claim language of claim 1. Specifically, having
determined the scope of the claim, we find nothing in Appellant’s
claim language that precludes the reading of Berry’s teaching on
the claim as stated supra. We are relying on Berry’s teaching of
the second object being a folder which enables Berry’s system to
operate in the same way as Appellant’s claim. Further, we note
that Appellant’s claim does not preclude other features such as a
diskette.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007