Appeal No. 1999-2723
Application 08/674,082
§ 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-50, 107-
123 and 151-176 based on the teachings of Darnell and
Johnston. This rejection is explained on pages 3-12 of the
final rejection mailed on September 29, 1998 and incorporated
into the examiner’s answer [page 4]. With respect to
independent claim 1, appellants argue that in Darnell, the
notes are not attached to the contents in a client area of the
window or desktop. Appellants also argue that the notes are
not moved across boundaries of a window in Darnell.
Appellants argue that although contents in Johnston can be
dragged across boundaries, the contents in Johnston are
assimilated with the contents into which they are dropped and
do not remain separate from the contents as claimed.
Appellants also argue that it would not have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Darnell and Johnston [brief, pages 7-
13].
The examiner responds that notes in Darnell are
attached at a specific location in the client area of the
document. The examiner notes that Johnston teaches the
movement of contents across boundaries, and the examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007