Appeal No. 2001-1478
Application No. 08/853,539
identify where the examiner acknowledged this point, and we have not found such an
acknowledgment. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Daniel does not teach or suggest routing an event to a
human interface object according to type. (See brief at pages 5-6. ) We agree with
appellants and note that the examiner acknowledged this by combining Gough for the
combination to teach or suggest the claimed invention. Additionally, we note that the
language of claim 1 merely sets forth the intended field of use for "routing an event to a
human interface object in a computer system." The last step in independent claim 1
merely recites "routing the event based on the determined routing type" and not to a
human interface object in a computer system as recited in the preamble.
Appellants further argue that the combination fails to disclose or suggest
determining a routing type of an event and routing the event based on the determined
routing type, such that events associated with different routing types are handled in
different manners as depicted in Figure 11 of the application. (See brief at page 6.)
We disagree with appellants, and find that Daniel does teach and fairly suggest
determining a routing type of an event and routing the event based on the determined
routing type, such that events associated with different routing types are handled in
different manners. Per the examiner's interpretation of the language of the claim as it
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007