Appeal No. 2002-2182
Application No. 09/223,565
figures in support of their arguments which attempt to distinguish
the claim language from the applied prior art.1
Accordingly, in interpreting the language of representative
claim 1, we will give the terminology “display portion” its
ordinary and accepted meaning and, in doing so, find ourselves in
agreement with the Examiner’s analysis articulated at pages 3 and 4
of the Answer. We find no error in the Examiner’s interpretation
of Lemay which asserts that the top and bottom windows depicted in
Lemay’s Figures 8.3 and 8.4 and the scroll bar at the right hand
side of Figure 8.6 correspond to the first, second, and third
display portions as claimed. Although Appellants contend (Brief,
page 5) that the web pages in Lemay are not configurable on one of
a server and client as claimed, we fail to see why the creation of
hyperlinks (Lemay’s Figures 9.15-9.17) for the page objects dragged
and dropped on to the navigation window would not meet the claimed
limitation. In our view, as also alluded to by the Examiner
(Answer, page 7), the hyperlinks in Lemay, which are clearly
designed to function in an internet environment (Lemay, page 168),
represent executable code which is configured to execute on “one of
1 In the “Summary of the Invention” section of the Brief at pages 2-4,
Appellants make reference to various passages from the specification. It is
unclear, however, what relevance, if any, these passages have to the elements
set forth in the claims on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007