Appeal No. 2003-0637
Application No. 09/103,414
is incorrect. (See reply brief at page 2.) Appellants argue that framesets are defined in
the specification and that as defined is completely different than frames. (See reply
brief at page 2.) Appellants argue that Windows does not disclose or suggest the
display of different documents in two or more independent windows. (See reply brief at
page 3.) We agree with each of appellants’ arguments.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not provided any insight as to how the
Netscape can be modified by the file manager of Windows. (See brief at page 7.) We
agree with appellants that the examiner has not provide any reasoned analysis of how
and why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
system of Netscape with the file manager of Windows. Appellants argue that the
system of Windows which includes the ability to modify the certain properties of folders
and documents does not describe or suggest a target document as being directly
editable within a frameset. (See brief at pages 7 and 8.) Appellants distinguish the
editing of the properties of a document from the actual document. (See brief at page
8.) We agree with appellants and do not find the editing of the properties of a
document, such as, its name to be suggestive of the editing of the document itself.
Appellants argue that Lin does not teach or suggest updating a TOC document in
response to an edit of the target document. (See brief at pages 8-9.) Appellants argue
that Lin requires substantial manual intervention and that the report outline can only be
updated by providing a new report and outline criteria by the user and repeating the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007