Appeal No. 2004-0257
Application No. 09/296,724
conclusions, the examiner points to figures 18, 21, and 22;
column 5, lines 65-68; column 22, lines 51-63; column 24, lines
38-49; and column 6, lines 30-39, lines 48-50, and 62-67 of
Fults.3
The examiner then states that Fults lacks a user interaction
means and an imaging subsystem. The examiner then points to a
teaching in Wilson at column 3, lines 17-67, for such a user
interaction means and imaging subsystem. As motivation to modify
Fults with the teaching of Wilson, the examiner states that
“providing a modular working storage unit improves upon the
existing working storage unit design.”4
The Appellant argues that claim 1 of the application
requires that the user interface controller module controls which
GUI elements will be rendered, when and how those GUI elements
will be structured, and then generates a pull request to an
application module for selected GUI elements. The Appellant goes
on to further argue that the ‘pull request,’ as defined by the
specification is a request that is spontaneous, without first
receiving information from the application module. In
3 Examiner’s Answer, page 4 lines 1-12.
4 Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 12-20.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007