Appeal No. 1999-2641
Application No. 08/644,119
teaching a “preview window” and we find no such teaching therein. If there is no
display of a preview window in Cain, then there can be no suggestion of “displaying of a
preview window . . . automatically displayed in response to said user input selecting
said control for said editing transaction,” as claimed.
Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that all of the claimed elements but for the
displaying a copy of the control in a preview window in response to selecting the control
for an editing transaction 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
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] is not only so grammatically poor as to defy an
accurate understanding of the examiner’s position, but, to the extent that the
examiner is implying that a “cut and paste” operation applied to the Cain system would
improve or provide for anything, it is still unclear as to why any “cut and paste” property
of Li, applied to Cain, would have resulted in the instant claimed subject matter.
Appellants argue [page 8-principal brief] that Cain
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007