Appeal No. 2004-1460
Application No. 09/495,217
displayed in Lindhorst are independent of the event selected by
the developer from the event pane. Appellant notes that in
response to selecting an action in Lindhorst, the action is
inserted into the script code, but the action itself is not
performed. Appellant notes that neither Lindhorst’s action pane
nor the code pane meets all the limitations of the claimed pane
for displaying tasks. Finally, appellant argues that Lindhorst
discloses an editing application, which is significantly
different from process navigation (brief, pages 6-12).
The examiner responds that Lindhorst fully meets the
claimed invention. The examiner asserts that Lindhorst discloses
that an event is triggered when a particular user action occurs,
and that once the user performs an action that triggers an event,
the corresponding event handling software is initiated and run on
the computer system. The examiner essentially finds that the
linkage of events and actions in Lindhorst meets the claimed
invention (answer, pages 5-8).
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
claims as being anticipated by the disclosure of Lindhorst. We
essentially agree with all of appellant’s arguments set forth in
the brief. Most importantly, we agree with appellant that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007