Appeal No. 2004-1045
Application 09/282,129
dimensional window Manager at figure 3” (answer, pages 6-7). The
appellants’ window frame edge, however, is the window border
(specification, page 20, lines 7-8), and Horvitz’s buttons 66
and 68 are not part of the border but, rather, are inside it.
Also, the appellants’ claim 1 requires that the plurality of
selectable frame edges are on the same window, whereas Horvitz’s
frame edges relied upon by the examiner (answer, page 7) are on
different windows (figure 3).
As for the swinging of the window, the examiner argues that
“‘either transforming a two dimensional window to a three
dimensional window or moving a two dimensional window to a three
dimensional window’ suggests the swinging motion as claimed”
(answer, page 7). This argument that Horvitz would have
suggested the appellants’ swinging is directed toward an
obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, whereas the claims
are rejected on the ground that the claimed invention is
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The examiner has not made
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 wherein the examiner explains
why it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to select a window frame edge (which was known
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007