Appeal No. 2002-0884
Application No. 08/852,507
application programs.3 The Fults reference clearly recognizes this
distinction since the generic and user interface programs are
unambiguously referred to as “operating system programs”, not
“application programs.” We also note that the generic and specific
user interface programs in Fults, described therein as included
within the operating system software, would not meet the Examiner’s
proffered and unsupported definition of an application program.
Further, it is our opinion that the Examiner has failed to
show how Fults discloses another key feature of independent claims
1 and 4, i.e., the requirement that an application program describe
the interoperability of two other application programs. We find no
basis in Fults, and the Examiner has provided none, for the
Examiner’s conclusion (Answer, page 4) that an “... operator can
direct communication between the interfaces using the generic user
interface.” The Examiner must not only make requisite findings,
based on the evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the asserted.
See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
3 The attached copies of excerpts from Computer Dictionary, (Microsoft
Press®, Second Edition 1994) and Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, establish, in
our view, that one of ordinary skill would recognize and appreciate that the
ordinary and accepted meaning of the term “application program” signifies
something distinct from “operating system programs.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007