Appeal No. 2002-1771
Application 09/204,914
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Siefert.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 5) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 11) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(Paper No. 10) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief
(Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together (Br3).
Claim 1 is selected as representative.
The examiner's position is best stated as follows (EA6):
In brief, the Examiner equates "the plurality of interactive
objects representative of substantially all of the files in
the operation" to options of choosing POINT, LINE, CIRCLE,
ELLIPSE, BOX, TEXT of Figure 3 of Siefert. The claimed set
of high interactivity objects is met by the proposed
"CENTER & RADIUS" once the user chooses "CIRCLE." Clearly,
once the CIRCLE option is selected, the set of high
interactivity objects of CENTER & RADIUS is displayed
separate from but simultaneously with the displayed
plurality of interactive objects of POINT, LINE, CIRCLE,
ELLIPSE, BOX[,] TEXT representing substantially all of the
files in the operation of the DRAW operation.
Initially, although not argued by appellants, we find that
while the menu items POINT, LINE, ... TEXT on menu 3 and menu
items CENTER & RADIUS, TWO POINTS (DIAMETER), THREE POINTS on
menu 6 are "interactive objects," they are not representative of
"files," much less "representative of substantially all the files
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007