Appeal No. 2004-0870 Page 4
Application No. 09/477,419
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:
• claims 1-13 and 30-41
• claims 14, 17-22, 25-29
• claims 15 and 23
• claims 16 and 24.
A. CLAIMS 1-13 AND 30-41
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on a point of contention therebetween. Admitting that "Green fails to teach an
active window for displaying data associated with active tasks and displaying a
minimized representation for the window of each inactive task or operation,"
(Examiner's Answer at 4), the examiner asserts, "Williams teaches a user-selectable
mode of operation in which only the active window is displayed and others are
minimized (Williams, [Fig.] 1b, #15, #14)." (Id. at 10.) The appellants argue, "nowhere
in Williams is there any indication that the mode of operation is user selectable." (Reply
Br. at 2.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe claims at issue to determine their scope. Second, we determine
whether the construed claims would have been obvious.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007