Ex Parte LINDHORST et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-2182                                                        
          Application No. 09/223,565                                                  


          the time of web page development a common appearance is provided            
          whether the associated script or components are ultimately run on           
          the client or server.  The client side or server side objects are           
          dragged and dropped from one display portion to another with at             
          least one of the objects being configurable to execute on one of a          
          server and a client.                                                        
               Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                       
               1.  A user interface for providing a designer with an enhanced         
          programming environment comprising:                                         
               a first display portion representing a page, the first display         
          portion receiving dragged and dropped objects;                              
               a second display portion representing a library of the objects         
          for dragging and dropping the objects into the first display                
          portion, at least one of said objects being configurable to execute         
          on one of a server and a client; and                                        
               a third display portion for configuring at least one of a              
          method or property of one of the objects after the one of the               
          objects has been dragged and dropped into the first display                 
          portion.                                                                    
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Laura Lemay (Lemay), Microsoft® FrontPageTM 98, Sams.net PublishingTM       
          120-24, 160-70, 525-35 (1997).                                              
               Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.             
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lemay.  Claim 2 stands rejected            
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemay.                  



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007