Appeal No. 2002-2182
Application No. 09/223,565
a server and a client.” We also find no convincing arguments from
Appellants that would convince us of any error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of Lemay’s scroll bar as corresponding to the
claimed third display portion for configuring a property of one of
the displayed objects since the scrolling of an object or portion
into and out of a display area clearly alters the visual property
of such an object. Again, Appellants have pointed to no specific
portion of their disclosure that provides any guidance as to the
interpretation of the term “property” so as to distinguish over the
disclosure of Lemay.
In view of the above discussion, we reach the general
conclusion that the language of representative claim 1 simply does
not require the interpretation asserted by Appellants in the Brief,
or by Appellants’ representative at the oral hearing on June 12,
2003. Accordingly, since the Examiner’s prima facie case of
anticipation has not been overcome by any convincing arguments from
Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as claims 3, 10, 11, and 13 which fall
with claim 1, is sustained.2
2 In the Answer, the Examiner has restated the grounds of rejection to
include claim 13 in the group of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rather than 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants’ comments at page 11 of the Brief,
(continued...)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007