Appeal No. 1999-2641
Application No. 08/644,119
other property menu items in call up submenus when selected from which various
properties, such as type and style, can be customized” [sic] [answer-page 6].
The examiner also appears to take the position that the claimed “applying said change
to said control in said main window if said change is desired to be applied to said
control” may be met by Cain’s disclosure of an object inheriting “a particular behavior as
a result of its containership location” [answer-page 7].
We have carefully reviewed the examiner’s rationale for the rejection and the
examiner’s responses to appellants’ arguments but we are unconvinced by any of the
arguments or the rationale that either of the applied references suggests, inter alia, the
claimed “displaying a preview window on the display screen, wherein said preview
window is automatically displayed in response to said user input selecting said control
for said editing transaction,” as set forth, in one form or another, in each of the
independent claims.
Since each of the independent claims requires this limitation, we will not sustain
the rejection of claims 18-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007