Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
reference pertain only to actions which are carried out
when the source and destination for the target are
within the same workplace. They do not suggest that a
move operation is always performed, regardless of the
source of the object.” See page 8, lines 5-11 of the
Brief.
We note that Appellant’s claim 18 recites the following:
determining whether the said second object is a container
object;
detecting whether there is an indication of a user-initiated
modified operation; and
if said second object is a container object, always
performing a move operation if there is no indication of a
user-initiated modified operation, regardless of a source of
the first object.
In reviewing Appellant’s disclosure, we note that on page 7,
line 31 to page 8, line 2 of the specification, Appellant
discloses that, “[i]f the destination is a container object, such
as any of the examples illustrated in Figure 3A, the dragged
object is moved from its original location to the destination
object.” Appellant further discloses that,
[o]f course, there may be instances when the user
desires to place a copy of a selected object at the
destination, and leave the original version of the
object intact, rather than move it. For example,
referring to Figure 3A, the user may desire to place a
copy of the file 54 in the folder 58. In this
situation, the user can indicate the desire to make a
copy by performing a specified action during the drag-
and-drop operation. See page 8, lines 10-15 of the
specification.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007