Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
operation, regardless of a source of the first object.” In
particular, as stated with respect to the limitations above, we
find that Berry only discloses a move when the second object is a
container object (i.e., a folder) unless, as later disclosed by
Berry, that a user override is initiated when a move may not be
desired (i.e. the user wants to perform a copy function).
Therefore, we find that Berry’s system always performs a move
operation, as argued supra if the second object is a container
object (i.e., a folder) and if there is no indication of a user-
initiated modified operation, regardless of a source of the first
object.
Addressing Appellant’s argument that “the Berry reference
does not provide such consistent behavior across all forms of
source and target media . . .” (see page 7, lines 22-25 of the
Brief), we fail to find that this limitation is set forth in
Appellant’s claim language of claim 1.
We further note that Appellant also argues that,
[s]pecifically, on page 450, left column, the last
sentence of the third paragraph states: ‘The result of
drag and drop depends on the classes of the source and
target objects. (emphasis added).’ . . . Hence, when
the Berry reference is viewed as a whole for what it
fairly teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art, it
cannot be properly interpreted to suggest that a move
operation is performed when an object is dragged and
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007