Appeal No. 2001-2101
Application No. 09/111,495
Brief, page 2) to the obviousness rejection asserts a failure by
the Examiner to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since
proper motivation for the Examiner’s proposed combination of
references has not been set forth. After reviewing the arguments
of record from both Appellants and the Examiner, we are in
general agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the
Briefs.
In particular, we agree with Appellants that the applied
Solimene and Hahn references are directed to fundamentally
different approaches to solving the problems associated with
improving the ease of operation of graphical user interfaces. In
this regard, our interpretation of the disclosure of Solimene
coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., while a command
structure is modified to implement the incorporation of a
“hyperbutton,” any such modification is performed by user prompts
through a dialog window (Solimene, Figures 6A and B), not through
direct manipulation by dragging and dropping using a graphical
pointer as claimed.
Further, while the Hahn reference uses a “drag-and-drop”
operation to move documents and folders from one analogized “file
drawer” or “file cabinet” to another, there is no suggestion or
teaching of the modification of a “command” structure as claimed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007