Appeal No. 2001-2241
Application No. 08/928,555
window and the resulting button collapses it. (See answer at page 4.) While we agree
with the examiner concerning Windows applications generally, the features are not
specifically evidenced at page 54 and 55 of Microsoft. It is unclear from the limited
teaching whether there are any buttons to expand to a window. Clearly, there is the
reduction in size, but we find no evidence of the expanding function as recited in the
language of independent claim 1. The examiner maintains that Microsoft is directed to
the user and not the professional programmer so that the omission is proof that even
the casual user does not require such detail to know that these functions are there. We
disagree with the examiner’s lack of concern for the requirement of evidence to support
the findings in a rejection. The examiner’s position that the heavy outline on page 54 is
a selection of a subproject is a reasonable interpretation, but it could also be the mere
selection of the input cell and perform no expansion thereof. Since it is does not
inherently follow that there is a selection and expansion, we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection
of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over
Microsoft.
With respect to independent claim 10, appellants similarly argue that Microsoft
does not teach “receiving a selection of a field” and “displaying an editing window in
which the content of the selected field is edited.” (See brief at pages 7-8.) Appellants
argue that the examiner has not provided any indication in Microsoft of a selection and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007