Appeal No. 2002-1289
Application No. 08/972,219
using a visual element manager builder with a downloaded user interface, according to
appellants. (Id. at 8-9.)
The examiner responds that “claim 1 does not recite a visual element manager
builder built by a user.” Further, “Gish discloses an object-oriented system for a client-
server application enabler system which includes a toolkit for creating client programs
(visual element manager builder) that can be downloaded on the Web (a visual element
manager for generating an element manager object).” (Answer at 10.)
We agree with appellants, for the reasons emphasized in the Reply Brief, that
the rejection fails to show disclosure or suggestion of a visual element manager builder
for generating an element manager object, as required by instant claim 1. The initial
statement of the rejection appears to suggest that Daly teaches all of claim 1 except for
a “client process for downloading to a client computer for execution,” which, in turn,
suggests that Daly teaches a visual element manager builder for generating an element
manager object, although not having a user interface being downloaded from the visual
element manager builder for execution on a client computer. The rejection does not
point out, however, where Daly might be deemed to teach the remainder of the
requirements of the claimed visual element manager builder that generates an element
manager object.
The responsive arguments at page 10 of the Answer suggest, perhaps, a better
rationale for rejection -- that the toolkit for creating client programs, as disclosed by
Gish, may have suggested a visual element manager builder for generating element
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007