Appeal No. 2003-2010
Application 09/150,549
the section beginning at column 14, line 19 (R2-3). The examiner
finds that Buxton does not clearly teach "executing said
predefined process ... until said association is disabled by a
user," but concludes that it would have been obvious to provide
for user disabling of the macro so that the user can go on to
other tasks (R3).
Appellants argue that the primary process described by
Buxton involves a movable overlay and selecting an object through
the overlay by the mouse utilizing the cursor and, hence, Buxton
fails to show or suggest "associating said predefined process
with said movable cursor," as claimed (Br5).
While we agree with appellants that the primary method
described by Buxton involves an overlay, the examiner relies on
the so-called "modal" tool.
As to the "modal" mode, appellants argue that this is the
interface described in the prior art by appellants as a mode of
operation in which a particular tool is selected by the user
utilizing a cursor and thereafter that particular tool operates
on each object selected by the cursor (Br6). Appellants refer to
the following statement in Buxton (col. 26, lines 1-7): "[T]he
tool handles described in section 3.01 could include a button
placing the cursor in a tool mode corresponding to that tool.
While in this mode, user can repeatedly perform operations as
though they were clicking through that tool." It is argued that
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007