Appeal No. 2006-0361
Application 09/752,654
examiner relies upon Appellants’ admitted prior art in
specification figures 4A through 4C (discussed at specification
page 1, line 22 through page 3, line 22) in view of Filepp. This
rejection is extended to claims 81, 85, 88 through 94, 102, 114
through 116, 123, 125 through 127, 141, 142, 147, 148, 150 and
152 by the addition of Gavron.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
Essentially for the reasons generally set forth by
appellants in the brief and reply brief, we reverse the
rejections of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In reaching this conclusion, we note that each of
independent claims 73, 95, 104, 117, 128, 136, 143, 149, 151 and
153 in some manner recites the reception of a user input
selecting a navigation item displayed on a first palette window,
followed by the closing of this window in response to this user
input and also displaying another window in response to this user
input selection. The focus of the arguments between the examiner
and appellants is on the closing feature, where an existing
window is closed once a user selects from among a plurality of
input selections on this window.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007