Appeal No. 2006-0641
Application No. 09/416,536
or more user selectable table portions to at least one of the one
or more graphical portions.” According to the examiner (answer,
page 4), the dragging and dropping of an object (i.e., a user
selectable table portion) into a designated Zframe icon 310
through 313 (i.e., one or more graphical portions) in Wilcox
(column 7, line 31 through column 8, line 14) reads on the
limitation allegedly missing in the teachings of Wilcox. Based
upon the teachings of Wilcox, the anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 6, 11, 16 and 21 is sustained.
The anticipation rejection of claim 24 based upon the
teachings of Wilcox is sustained because Wilcox discloses tabs
308 that differ from the Zframe icons 310 through 313 (column 7,
lines 46 through 48).
The anticipation rejection of claims 25 and 26 based upon
the teachings of Wilcox is reversed because the examiner has
failed to explain where discontiguous table portions are found in
the teachings of Wilcox.
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claims 14 and
19, we agree with the examiner’s statement (answer, page 5) that
Figures 4A and 4B of Anderson show the selection of a single
column and a single row (column 9, lines 22 through 25), and that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
present that single column or row to the graphical user interface
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007