Appeal No. 1999-2615
Application No. 08/644,120
obviousness. The independent claims 31, 44, 53, 60 and 61 contain many elements
yet the examiner merely alleges that these elements are present in Cain without
specifically pointing out where such elements are found. For example, with regard to
claim 31, the examiner alleges that all of the elements are disclosed in Cain except for
the last “applying . . .” step. However, the only specific reference to Cain is to column 9,
lines 5-67, and to Figures 4A-4F. The examiner does not specifically correlate the
claimed elements to particular portions of column 9 of Cain.
We have reviewed the portion of Cain cited by the examiner and we find nothing
therein about “creating a second internal control object in response to said selecting
said control for said editing transaction, wherein said second internal control object is a
copy of said first.” If there is no creation of a second internal control object, then there
can be no “displaying said second internal control object . . .” and there can be no
“changing said second internal control object...” or “displaying said changed second
internal control object,” as claimed.
Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that all of the claimed elements but for the
last element in claim 31 are shown in Cain, the examiner has provided no convincing
rationale establishing a motivation for making the proposed combination wherein
anything taught by Li would have led the artisan to provide that teaching to the Cain
system. The examiner’s reasoning that the combination would have been made “in
order permitting a user to efficiently create an application utilizing a plurality of objects
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007