Appeal No. 2004-0870 Page 14
Application No. 09/477,419
available the window with the desired information and functionality (e.g., reducing other
windows to icons. . . ." Col. 1, ll. 52-57. For its part, Williams teaches automatically
replacing the display of the window for a previously selected location with a minimized
representation thereof when a new location is selected. Because automatically
minimizing undesired windows to allow a user to interact with an active window would
have solved the "user effort for windowing manipulation," problem recognized by Green,
col. 1, ll. 58-59, we conclude that the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested, in response to selection of a task other than the active task, automatically
replacing the display of the window for the active task with a minimized representation
thereof. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 14 and of claims 17-22,
and 25-29, which fall therewith.
C. CLAIMS 15 AND 23
The examiner finds, "Green discloses a plurality of windows wherein the topmost
window is the selected active window (fig. 3; col. 4, lines 15 -19). The window
underneath the topmost 'window is associated with the former task remains displayed,'
as cited by the Appellant while the new task window is displayed." (Examiner's Answer
at 5.) The appellants argue, "[a]lthough Green discloses the result of the claimed
override feature (i.e., displaying both active and inactive task windows), the result in
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007