Appeal No. 2004-1177
Application No. 08/769,404
at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27
USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations set forth in independent claim 1. Appellants argue that the combination of
Hurvig and Rowland does not teach or suggest that “a user associates an object
corresponding to at least one of said graphical user interfaces with at least one of said
methods to handle an event” and wherein at least a graphical user interface is
provided by the GUI server. (See brief at pages 7-11.) In response to appellants’
argument, the examiner essentially repeats the language from the rejection and
concludes that the user is provided with an interface having objects associated with
function (methods) to handle requests (events). (See answer at pages 14-16.) From
our review of Hurvig and Rowland, we find no express teaching or suggestion of
associating a GUI from a GUI server with at least one of said methods to handle an
event, and we do not find that the examiner has specifically addressed this argument
and merely restates the ground of rejection in the response to the argument.
Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007