Appeal No. 2001-2241
Application No. 08/928,555
Appellants argue that all of the limitations must be taught in order to satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 102. (See brief at pages 5-7.) We agree with appellants.
With respect to the teachings of Microsoft, appellants argue that there is no teaching of
what steps must be carried out in order to display the diagrams. Appellants argue that
Microsoft does not teach the steps the user must perform in order to change the display
from the MOVE project to display the ANNOUNCE project. We agree with appellants.
Appellants argue that the examiner’s treatment of the claimed invention does not rise to
the level of a prima facie case of anticipation. (See brief at page 7.) We agree with
appellants. Appellants argue that the language of claim 1 recites “in response to a user
selecting descriptive information of a section, expanding that section by displaying the
data entry fields associated with that section.” Similarly appellants argue that the
examiner has not shown how Microsoft teaches “when the user indicates to collapse
the expanded section, collapsing that section by removing the displayed data entry field
and redisplaying the descriptive information for that section.” (See brief at page 7.) We
agree with appellants that the brief teachings of Microsoft do not adequately detail the
operation to transition from one display to the other display. Specifically, while
Microsoft arguably teaches opening and closing a new window, it teaches neither that
the descriptive material is selected nor that the display is expanded while keeping the
other descriptive material in context on the same display within the fields or sections.
The examiner maintains that Microsoft teaches clicking on any button to expand the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007