Appeal No. 2002-1868
Application 09/059,033
Kurtenbach seems to correspond to a history palette because the
icons represent commands that will be executed in sequence, and
while the tool palette and tool shelf in Kurtenbach appear to
correspond to the tool palette 252 and history palette 256,
respectively, in appellant's Fig. 13, this teaching is difficult
to apply to Yuasa. The commands in Yuasa have to be specified in
a particular way, partly because of the nature of the Lisp
language, and thus do not lend themselves to being selected from
a tool palette or represented as a history palette. The
rejection fails to present reasons to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 4-9 and 15-18 is
reversed.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites: "The computer program of claim 12 wherein
when the commands are transferred, they are transferred to an
action palette that builds the macro file."
The examiner finds that the combination of Yuasa, Dwyer, and
Clark do not disclose the limitation (FR13; EA16). The examiner
finds that Kurtenbach discloses icons representing commands being
dragged to an action (FR13; EA16). The examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to include icons representing commands
being dragged to an action palette in the combination of Yuasa,
Dwyer, and Clark because "[b]y doing so, the system would enhance
- 13 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007