Appeal No. 2002-0553
Application No. 09/391,782
reason that the reference is not seen to include the particular
window buttons set forth therein.
This panel of the Board also sustains the rejection of
claims 14 through 17 based upon our above findings relative to
Briffe. Thus, appellants’ argument (brief, page 7) that the
Briffe patent fails to teach both elements, i.e., a size
configurable window and a map, fails to convince us that the
rejection is not sound.
We additionally sustain the rejection of claim 18. Contrary
to the view of appellants (brief, page 7), the WPT LIST of Fig.
16 of Briffe includes a control button that adjusts a size
characteristic of the list.
In summary, this panel of the board has sustained the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, and 14 through 18, but has not
sustained the rejection of claims 4, 5, 6, and 13.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007