Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
Turning to a discussion of the appealed dependent claims, we
note initially that, although Appellant has indicated that all of
the appealed claims are to be considered separately, no separate
arguments for patentability have been asserted for dependent
claims 2, 6, 8, 11, and 15-18. Instead, Appellant’s arguments in
the Briefs, aside from a general assertion that these claims
recite unspecified “further limitations” over their base claims,
rely on the arguments previously made with respect to independent
claims 1, 7, 14, and 19. Since, as discussed supra, we find
Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive in overcoming the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2, 6, 8, 11, and 15-18 is
sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 3, directed to the particulars of the drivers
component, and claims 4 and 5, which set forth the partial screen
overlay and full screen display features. We refer to our
previous discussion supra which points out that Hellhake’s
disclosed API element 44 corresponds to Appellant’s disclosed
example of a driver, as well as our comments related to Harper’s
discussion of partial screen overlays and Hellhake’s description
of full or partial screen interfaces.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007