Appeal No. 1999-2723
Application 08/674,082
We now consider the rejection of claims 101, 140-143,
177-179, 187-192, 200-204 and 212-216 based on the teachings
of Darnell and Gough. This rejection is explained on pages
12-20 of the final rejection mailed on September 29, 1998 and
incorporated into the examiner’s answer [page 4]. With
respect to independent claims 101, 107, 140, 177, 189, 202
and 214, appellants argue that neither Darnell nor Gough
teaches moving a note across a boundary of a window.
Appellants argue that push pin mouse cursor 605 of Darnell is
not an annotatable note but only an icon so that no note is
moved across boundaries in Darnell [brief, pages 20-21]. The
examiner responds that Darnell teaches note movement across a
window boundary during note creation and attachment while
Gough teaches linking a note to an anchor object in the client
area of a window [answer, pages 7-8].
In our view, the key question is whether Darnell
teaches or suggests moving a note across the boundary of a
window. Appellants are correct that the note itself in
Darnell is not created until the push pin is moved across the
window boundary and attached to the window. Thus, we agree
with appellants that push pin mouse cursor 605 of Darnell is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007