Appeal No. 2001-2241
Application No. 08/928,555
an editing window. (See brief at pages 7-8.) We agree with appellants, while Microsoft
generally teaches that edited data is updated throughout the subprojects, we do not find
it inherent that the editing window is removed and the edited information displayed in
the selected field. We find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 10 and
dependent claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Microsoft.
With respect to Wright, Jr. ‘029, the examiner maintains that when a field is
selected, a script associated with the field is invoked to do whatever the script can do.
While this may be true for the entry of data into the form, it does not address the
express language of independent claims 1 and 10. Appellants argue that Wright does
not teach that a displayed section is expanded when its description is selected and
Wright does not teach an editing window for editing the contents of a field when the
field is selected. (See brief at page 9.) We agree with appellants. The examiner
maintains that going from one display in the form to another display necessarily
collapses and expands another. (See answer at page 5.) While this may be true of the
functioning of windows, it does not address the limitation of the instant claim language.
The examiner realizes that the input sequence of Wright is not a series of windows, but
maintains that the distinction is trivial. (See answer at page 5.) Since the examiner
admits that Wright does not teach a window as required by the language of claim 10,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007