Appeal No. 1999-2615
Application No. 08/644,120
Li et al. (Li) 5,555,370 Sep. 10, 1996
(filed Dec. 28, 1993)
Cain et al. (Cain) 5,651,108 Jul. 22, 1997
(filed Jan. 11, 1996)
Claims 31-73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Cain in
view of Li.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note our decision in related Appeal No. 99-2641.
It is the examiner’s position that Cain discloses the instant claimed subject
matter but for applying a change to the first internal control object if the change is
desired to be applied to the first internal control object. The examiner then turns to Li
for such a teaching, identifying column 4, lines 3-29, and Figures 9 and 11 of Li.
Finally, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide applying a
change to the first internal control object if the change is desired in the Cain system “in
order permitting a user to efficiently create an application utilizing a plurality of objects
in a graphic user interface graphically presents objects to the user in the GUI and
providing facility for cutting and pasting object while preserving any attach properties
and methods” [sic] [answer-page 4].
We find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007