Appeal No. 2002-0654
Application No. 09/024,311
separate, additional “further” user actuation/mouse clicking is
required for activation of the associated graphical object.
Page 3 of our prior decision sets forth the backdrop for
this noted limitation for which succeeding pages 3 through
8 discuss the specific teachings and suggestions of Koppolu and
Rosenberg and their proper combinability within 35 U.S.C. § 103
in detail. As such, it is not well received that the appellants
would assert at page 3 of the request “[n]either the Decision of
the Board of Appeals and Interferences nor the Examiner’s Answer
addresses the foregoing issue. The Decision of the Board of
Appeals and Interferences does not mention the limitation
contained in the bolded language.”
Appellants’ separate discussion of claim 29 at pages 4 and
5 of the request is equally not well received. Page 5 of the
request for rehearing makes note of the first and second instance
limitations of claim 29 and then asserts that these limitations
were “not addressed in either the Examiner’s Answer or the
Decision of the Board of Appeals and Interferences.” This view
is not understood because appellants recognize at page 4 of the
request for rehearing that the subject matter of this claim along
with dependent claims 16 and 17 were discussed at page 10 of our
original opinion. There we also made note that the examiner had
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007