Appeal No. 2002-1868
Application 09/059,033
and provide better friendly technique which preserves the
intuitive and simplicity of the tool shelf/palette paradigm to
end users" (FR14; EA17).
Appellant argues that the examiner errs because the
rejection relies on the same reasoning and analysis as for
claim 4 even though claim 4 recited a history palette and
claim 19 recites an action palette (Br9).
The examiner expands on the teachings of Kurtenbach and
notes that Kurtenbach not only teaches a history palette, but
also teaches an action palette (EA26).
We reverse the examiner's rejection for similar reasons to
those stated with respect to claim 4. The rejection is modifying
a reference which has already been modified by two references,
which suggests hindsight. Moreover, it is not exactly clear how
the references are being combined. While the tool shelf in
Kurtenbach seems to correspond to a history palette (or log)
because the icons represent commands that will be executed in
sequence, there is no teaching of transferring commands from a
history log to an action palette. The rejection fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claim 19 is reversed.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007