Appeal No. 1999-2641
Application No. 08/644,119
does not even begin to suggest a preview window, much less a preview
window in which a copy of the control is displayed in response to an editing
transaction for the control. Although Cain in claim 1 does refer to the copying
of an object into system memory (the object therefore being undisplayed), the
copying takes place in response to user input requesting copying, not user
input requesting an editing transaction, See Cain column 20, lines 60-65. In
Cain, selecting an object for an editing transaction allows the user only to
directly edit the selected object. The selection of an object for an editing
transaction in Cain does not cause automatic display of a preview window
or automatic display of a copy of the object.
We agree.
In fact, referring to the portion of Cain cited by the examiner, appellants
contend that Cain teaches nothing more than the prior art over which the instant
claimed subject matter is an improvement and that the cited portion discloses only that
objects are placed in forms and the object’s properties are then edited through a pop-up
menu and a property window. Again, we agree. There is nothing in the cited portion of
Cain, or any other portion of Cain, as far as we can tell, that suggests the claimed
“preview window in which is displayed the copy of the control in the preview window.”
The examiner’s response is that the instant claims are broad in nature and that
the claim requirement of displaying a copy of the control in a preview window wherein
the copy is automatically displayed in the preview window in response to a user input
selecting a control for an editing transaction “can be interpreted as simply in the
computer-implemented method for editing a control in a computer system in which the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007