Appeal No. 2004-1413
Application No. 09/475,941
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that neither Root nor Crawford teaches or suggests a two-step
process to move an open window to the top to (pre)view the window prior to the
selection of the window for automatic insertion of data. (Brief at pages 6-8 and reply at
pages 2 and 3.) The examiner maintains that Root and Douglas clearly teach
designating a window for viewing, moving the designated window to the top of the
desktop and inserting data into the window when one of the selectable elements is
highlighted/selected. (Answer at page 6.) We disagree with the examiner’s
interpretation of the teachings of Root and Douglas with respect to the claimed
invention. From the examiner’s position, it appears that the examiner is interpreting the
highlighting as the selection, but we find that independent claim 1 requires two separate
steps. The first step is highlighting one of the selectable choices of windows which will
move the corresponding window to the top of the desktop. This is not the selection
step. Next, the user decides if this is the window which is desired to have the data
automatically inserted in the window. If not, then the user may highlight a different one
of the choices of selectable windows and that next choice is moved to the top of the
desktop for determination by the user if this one of the selectable windows is the one
which the user desires to have the automatic fill function performed. While it would
appear that the highlighting and moving of the window to the top of the desktop could be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007