Appeal No. 2004-0870 Page 16
Application No. 09/477,419
windows in Williams is never inhibited. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection
of claims 15 and 23.
D. CLAIMS 16 AND 24
The appellants stipulate that claims 16 and 24 "stand or fall together. . . ."
(Appeal Br. at 5.) We select claim 16 from the group as representative of the claims
therein.
Finding that "Hasegawa teaches graphic displays that can be selected for
display in greater detail," (Examiner's Answer at 9), and that "[t]humbnail windows use a
similar principle for displaying and selecting graphical displays," (id.), the examiner
asserts, "[i]t would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to combine a minimized representation of a window comprising a
thumbnail view of various selectable windows taught by Hasegawa with the windows
system disclosed by Green and Williams. Doing so aids selecting by giving the user a
cursory view of any number of selectable windows and other symbols available." (Id.)
Admitting that "Hasegawa discloses the use of thumbnail views, " (Reply Br. at 3-4), the
appellants argue, "Hasegawa fails to disclose or suggest that the thumbnail views are
employed to represent the minimized windows of all the inactive tasks." (Id. at 4.)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007