Appeal No. 2001-1308
Application No. 08/354,491
10, filed December 23, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 16, filed
April 20, 1998) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 2.
The examiner (Answer, page 3) states that Cowart discloses
"the application program interface inherently including a
separate command (i.e., corresponding to an invoked function or
method) to request each of the following services" followed by
the claimed list of services. (Emphasis ours.) As indicated by
appellants (Brief, pages 7-8, and Reply Brief, pages 2-3),
nowhere does the examiner provide a basis for asserting that a
separate command inherently is used to request each service.
Also, as pointed out by appellants (Brief, page 8), the examiner
(Answer, page 3) refers to the same drag-and-drop function of
Windows 3.1 for three different services, thereby suggesting that
a separate command is not used for each service.
As explained in Continental Can Co., U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co. ,
948 F.2d 1264, 1269, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
reproduced in Finnigan Corp. v. U.S. ITC, 180 F.3d 1354, 1365, 51
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007