Appeal No. 2002-0638
Application 08/932,239
discuss certain undesirable features of the program per se by the
reviewer, the use of the teachings in Matthies would have
minimized them as well.
As to appellant's arguments in the paragraph bridging pages
8 and 9 of the principal brief arguing that the two disclosures
of Wagstaff and Matthies are not enabling, appellant has provided
no evidence to us to this effect. The context of both
references, and indeed the context of even the third reference,
is to Apple computer systems, which have well-known operating
systems which provide scroll bars for the viewer to use. This is
represented by the third reference as well. To the extent the
disclosures of Wagstaff and Matthies are not enabling, the same
applies to appellant's own disclosure, since these two references
and appellant's own disclosure presume a certain minimal
knowledge of scroll bars in the art any way.
Finally, we consider the separate arguments of dependent
claims 32 and 33. At the outset, we note that the use of the
claimed scroll bar button moving along a path is well-known in
the art even for two dimensional systems as depicted in the
Macintosh reference and apparently admitted by appellant as part
of the prior art at specification pages 1 and 2. The purpose of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007