Ex Parte NIX - Page 2



          Appeal No. 1999-2605                                                         
          Application No. 08/788,669                                                   

               Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as                   
          follows:                                                                     
                    1.  A method of controlling a multi-state process in a             
               computer system comprising the steps of:                                
                    displaying a series of icons representing phases in a              
               build process;                                                          
                    displaying a main action message bar indicating an                 
               action to be performed in response to activating the bar;               
                                                                                      
                    activating the bar to perform the action indicated; and            
                    automatically pausing between each discrete action.                
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                         
          Bender et al. (Bender)        5,576,946            Nov. 19, 1996             
          QUE Corporation (QUE),“Adding, Deleting, and Creating Icons,”                
          1-2-3 Release 4 for Windows Quickstart, pp. 262-63 (1994).                   
               Claims 1-11, 17, and 18 stand finally rejected under                    
          35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner                
          offers Bender alone with respect to claims 1-5, 7-10, 17, and 18,            
          and adds QUE to Bender with respect to claims 6 and 11.                      
          Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the                     
          Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 8) and Answer            
          (Paper No. 9) for the respective details.                                    
                                       OPINION                                         
               We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,              
          the rejection advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of                  
                                          2                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007