Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
With respect to dependent claims 10-15, 21 and 22, appellants argue the drag
and drop feature which initiates an information retrieval function is not taught or
suggested by the prior art combination. (See brief at page 26.) We agree with
appellants as discussed above, and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 10-15,
21, and 22.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 5, 6, 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 23,
24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 38-40, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 3, 4 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 27, 30-32, and 35-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 7, 8, 16, 19, 41, and 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 10-15, 21
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007