Appeal No. 2001-2381
Application 09/025,155
displays multiple windows. Appellant argues that it was improper
for the examiner to equate the windows of Slotznick with
applications running on a computer. The essence of appellant’s
position is that Slotznick switches between processes of a single
application rather than from a communications application to an
active multitasking application as claimed. Appellant also
argues that the portion of Slotznick related to filtering teaches
away from the claimed invention [brief, pages 6-9].
The examiner responds that Slotznick teaches that windows
are equated with applications and that the windows are programs
capable of displaying information. The examiner asserts that
since Slotznick equates a window to a program, and since an
application is a program, then a window is considered to be an
application. Therefore, the examiner finds that the two display
windows of Slotznick teach the claimed invention [answer, pages
6-12].
Appellant responds that the examiner’s attempt to equate
a window to an application distorts the clear meaning of the
claimed invention [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 28, 35 and 42 or of any of the claims which
depend therefrom for essentially the reasons argued by appellant.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007