Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
same features recited in claim 38. Thus, the discussion of
claims 1 and 10 does not point out where Blowers might disclose
forward and backward controls and determining a status for each
task control. In the response to arguments portion of the
Answer, the examiner (Answer, page 14) points to column 9, lines
7-15 of Blowers. The examiner asserts that "[b]ecause Blowers
teaches the navigation of the structure tree or hierarchical
tree, it gives a user a chance to go back a previous step in the
whole sequence of the task steps." However, we see nothing in
Blowers that teaches or suggests the claimed forward and backward
controls.
In addition, the examiner (Answer, page 15) contends that
Blowers indicates in column 3, lines 16-45, and column 12, lines
34-48, "The Start/Stop (Online/Offline) status of the system is
indicated through icon changes," and that this somehow suggests
determining the status for each task control and each task
control being operable based on the status determined. We
disagree. The examiner has not made clear how the status of the
system indicates the status for each task control. Accordingly,
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation for claim 38 and its dependents, claims 39 through
51.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007