Appeal No. 2006-0538
Application No. 09/827,957
if the user interface element is in the active state
and in the focus state, building a merged state indicating
the user interface element is in the active state and in the
focus state; and
rendering based on the merged state a display of the
user interface element in the active state with a focus
state indicator.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Rock et al. (Rock) 6,039,047 Mar. 21, 2000
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Rock.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been
filed) for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Essentially for the general reasons set forth by the
examiner in the answer as amplified here, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Independent claims 1, 7, 11, 17 and 20 are presented for
consideration. Appellants’ brief presents no arguments with
respect to any dependent claim on appeal. Each of the
independent claims basically sets forth two separate testing or
logical decision making operations with respect to two separate
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007