Appeal No. 2001-1478
Application No. 08/853,539
independent claim 1. (See brief at page 5.) Therefore, we will also group independent
claims 12, 23, 32, 36, 37, 38, and 42 with independent claim 1.
We note that the examiner maintains that the event handler of Daniel
categorizes the events into groups and routes the events to user electronic addresses
or to application programs for further processing, and that this would include assigning
events, receiving events and determining the routing type of the categorized events.
(See final rejection at page 2.) We agree with the examiner that the categorization of
events would have been "assigning a type" as recited in claim 1 and that the
determining the routing type and routing would have been the association of an action
or actions with an event or group of events in a category, and then the subsequent
routing of the event or group of events to the address of a user or sending the event to
an application program for further processing. The examiner relies upon the teachings
of the Gough patent with respect to a computer human interface which provides for
user customization of object behavior and a computer to take actions in response to
detectable events or triggers which have been designated by a user. (See final
rejection at page 2 and answer at page 5.)
Appellants argue that the present invention relates to a method and apparatus
for routing "arbitrary human interface events to an appropriate human interface object."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007