Appeal No. 2002-0654
Application No. 09/024,311
discussed in his own manner the subject matter of claim 29 at the
bottom of page 10 of the answer which is part of the responsive
arguments portion of the answer. We have discussed in detail at
page 10 of our prior decision the examiner’s views expressed as
to the subject matter of a single control that places any one
visual element on both a windowed object and a windowless object
by buttressing the examiner’s views and adding our own from our
own individual study of both references.
It is thus seen that appellants’ broad assertions with
respect to the deficiencies of the examiner’s answer and our
prior decision are without merit. We note here again the
examiner’s allowance of claims 20 through 28 and the examiner’s
objection to claims 3 through 8, 11, 12, 30 through 36 as we
noted initially at the bottom of page 1 of our prior decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007