Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
Further, as to Appellant’s argument (Brief, page 9; Reply
Brief, page 4) with regard to the claimed “drivers component,”
we are in accord with the Examiner’s observation (Answer, page 9)
that Hellhake’s disclosed Applications Program Interface (API)
44 corresponds to Appellant’s example of a driver component at
page 6 of the specification. We also agree with the Examiner
that the examples of screen displays presented to an end user at
Figures 6-8 of Hellhake and described beginning at column 6, line
4 of Hellhake correspond to the claimed “ . . . a view component
providing graphical user interface contexts,” despite the fact
that, as argued by Appellant, the terminology “view component” is
not used by Hellhake. Similarly, contrary to Appellant’s
assertions (Brief, page 11; Reply Brief, page 4), Harper provides
for a partial screen overlay at column 11, lines 62-63 which
states that “ . . . graphics can be utilized to overlay any
portion of the screen of the television screen.” Further, as
alluded to by the Examiner (Answer, page 12), Hellhake also
contemplates (column 4, lines 48-51) full or partial screen
displays.
communications and computing converge in the field of telecommunications.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007