Appeal No. 2004-1045
Application 09/282,129
currently visible two-dimensional window to display as
a three-dimensional window in response to said user
manipulation of said pointing indicator; and
wherein said changing said currently visible two-
dimensional window to display as a three-dimensional
window comprises swinging said two-dimensional window
to said three-dimensional window display in response to
user selection of one frame edge of said plurality of
selectable frame edges of said two-dimensional window
with said pointing indicator.
THE REFERENCE
Horvitz et al. (Horvitz) 5,880,733 Mar. 9, 1999
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 10-12, 15-17, 25-29, 35-39 and 44-46 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Horvitz.1
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 16, 28 and 38.
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in
issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works
1 Claims 35 and 44 are omitted from the statement of the
rejection (answer, page 3). The examiner, however, states that
these claims remain rejected (answer, page 8).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007