Appeal No. 2002-0884
Application No. 08/852,507
unlike claims 1-6 which recite “autonomous application programs”,
claims 7-11 require a plurality of “software products.” It is
apparent to us that, in Fults, the application program for which a
designer is to develop a user interface, as well as the generic and
user interface operating system programs for implementing the
interface design, are undisputably “software products.” Further,
we fail to see how the stored “hint” functions described by Fults
in columns 9, 10, and clearly designed to aid a developer in
designing a specific user interface, could be considered anything
other than a “help” function as claimed.
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ arguments with
respect to dependent claims 8 and 9, directed to the
interoperability of the claimed first and second products.
Appellants’ arguments are based on their previous assertion that
Fults lacks two separate software products and a help function,
assertions which, from our previous discussion, we find to be
unfounded. We also find, as asserted by the Examiner (Answer, page
4) that Fults discloses that the “hint” functions provide
information regarding the interoperability of the various “software
products,” i.e., the application program for which a user interface
is to be developed, as well as the generic and specific interface
operating system programs used in developing the user interface.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007