Appeal No. 2004-1460
Application No. 09/495,217
neither the action pane nor the code pane of Lindhorst meets the
recitations of the second pane in representative claim 12. Claim
12 requires that the user selection of the task be made from the
second pane and that the selection results in the task being
performed. The action pane does not meet the claimed second pane
because selection of a task in the action pane of Lindhorst does
not cause the task to be performed. It only establishes a
computer program which will implement the task at some later time
if the action should occur. No task is performed simply in
response to the selection made in the action pane. The code pane
does not meet the claimed second pane because the tasks listed in
the code pane are not responsive to the object selected from the
event pane in Lindhorst. Therefore, the examiner’s findings of
anticipation are not supported by the disclosure of Lindhorst.
We now consider the rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 10,
14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Lindhorst taken alone. In rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a
factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007