Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
dropped onto a container object, regardless of the
source of the object, since the relationship between
the source and the destination determines whether the
object is moved or copied. See page 8, lines 13-15 and
lines 19-24 of the Brief.
We fail to find that Appellant’s claim limitations preclude
other embodiments such as Berry’s teaching wherein “objects that
are dropped on a container’s icon are moved into that container.”
See page 435, second column, first part paragraph of Berry.
Further, we find that Berry discloses a multitude of independent
embodiments with respect to drag, drop, copy and move. Hence, we
find that Appellant’s claim language does not preclude Berry’s
teaching of, always moving the object when the second object is a
container object such as a folder, as reading on Appellant’s
claim 18. Further, since Appellant has not made any other
arguments in regard to the Berry reference and claim 18, we
therefore find that the teachings of Berry meet Appellant’s
claimed limitation.
As stated above, we have carefully considered the objective
evidence as well as the prior art relied upon by the Examiner.
We find that Appellant’s claim 18 is properly rejected under
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007