Appeal No. 2006-0361
Application 09/752,654
Each of the respective rejections associated with each of
these earlier-noted independent claims relies upon appellants’
admitted prior art in figures 4A through 4C, the discussion of
which recognizes that this submitted prior art differs from the
features of the present claims by failing to teach that a first
palette window is closed subsequent to the reception of an user’s
input selecting a navigation item. The examiner urges that it
would have been obvious for the artisan to have utilized the Next
291 navigation button of figure 3b of Filepp which, in examiner’s
view, causes the closing of the current page any the display of
the next page. As to some of the independent claims, the
examiner also relies upon the teaching at column 49, lines 39
through 81, that a user selection of a close command can trigger
the system to perform both tasks of closing a current window and
opening another window, as expressed initially at page 10 of the
answer.
Since there is little dispute that the admitted prior art
fails to teach the closing capability of the claims on appeal,
our detailed study of Filepp lead us to conclude that it would
not have been obvious for the artisan to have incorporated the
closing capability that exists in Filepp into the system of the
admitted prior art. Figure 3a is a generic version of the figure
3b relied upon by the examiner. The corresponding discussion of
these figures in Filepp does not indicate that which the examiner
asserts figure 3 teaches. In reaching this conclusion we note
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007