Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
35 U.S.C. § 103. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 18 through 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Now we turn to the rejection of claims 26 through 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Berry and Owens. We
note that Appellant argues that the Owens reference “does not
disclose that a move operation is prohibited if a drag is
performed on an object with limited access.” See page 9, lines
13-14 of the brief. Appellant further argues that,
[t]he [Owens] patent goes on to state that, in cases
where the copy operation is not applicable, the
depression of the Option key ‘can be something else,’
such as overriding a confirmation dialogue. This
description of the alternative operations that are
carried out when the Option key is depressed do not
suggest the subject matter of claim 26, wherein a
determination is made whether access to the dragged
object is limited, and if so the movement of the
representation of the object is prohibited. (Emphasis
added). See page 9, lines 17-23 of the Brief.
On page 3 lines 6-8 of the Answer, reference to the Final
Office action found in Paper No. 16, the Examiner sets forth the
rejection of Appellant’s claims 26 through 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Berry and Owens. In the rejection the Examiner states
that, “Berry fails to explicitly teach the prohibiting of the
Move operation is [sic, if] the first object has limit access.”
See page 3, lines 9-10 of the Final rejection. In meeting the
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007