Appeal No. 2006-0361
Application 09/752,654
the discussion of figure 2 as a basis for this showing in figure
3 at the bottom of column 8; the teaching at column 14, lines 8
through 14 relating to window objects; the general discussion of
the operation of the system at column 69 through the top of
column 71; and the example of figure 3b beginning at the bottom
of column 89. It appears to us that none of the figures other
than those relied upon by the examiner illustrate the close
and open window feature upon the user selecting a new
window display item. This is illustrated as well in figure 11
discussed beginning at column 73, line 45, which, upon close
analysis, appears to teach the opposite of what the examiner
urges that Filepp would have suggested or taught to the artisan.
The so-called closed window command is discussed at column
49, lines 25 through 57. This portion does indeed teach what the
examiner asserts, that this special close window command may,
optionally, include an object identifier of a new window to be
opened after the closing of a currently opened window.
From all these teachings of Filepp, a more expansive view as
determined by our study of this reference does not lead us to
conclude that it would have been obvious for the artisan to have
used these capabilities to otherwise change, modify or improve
the operability of the window-based system of the admitted prior
art of appellants’ specification. A general argument of
improving or enhancing a program execution efficiency at the
bottom of page 10 of the answer, as an example, is a generic
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007