Appeal No. 2000-1913
Application 08/753,081
Representative independent claim 1 on appeal requires in
part "said standard window having a size border, a rectangular
client, a menu, a title bar, etc." The major dispute between
appellants and the examiner involves the limitation of "removing
areas of said standard window that are not part of said bitmap
image of said non-rectangular object." Corresponding limitations
appear in each of the other independent claims 7 and 14 on
appeal.
The examiner's focus upon column 11, lines 12-34 of Bartok
to support the examiner's view for the removing step noted
earlier in the previous paragraph is misplaced. What appears to
us to be more supportive of the examiner's view is the teaching
at column 11, lines 6-11 which states that "a user may drag, such
as by using a cursor 15 and input device 16, for example, a first
object on the screen 46 from a location to drop the first object
on a second object, thus incorporating within the second object
the information contained within the first object."
It is this detailed drag and drop feature relied upon by the
examiner at column 11, lines 12-34, which requires the noted
incorporation of one object within another once an object is
dropped, that the examiner apparently views corresponds to the
removal of object areas of a standard window that are not part of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007