Appeal No. 2006-1627
Application No. 09/934,945
the applet look like an executing application; and
the applet displaying a second window outside of the browser application’s window
constraints simultaneously with the first window using the class.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Razavi et al. (Razavi) 6,401,134 June 4, 2002
(filed July 25, 1997)
Nguyen et al. (Nguyen) 6,412,021 June 25, 2002
(filed Feb. 26, 1998)
Claims 12 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Razavi in view of Nguyen.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 12 through 15, 17 through 23, 25 through 31 and 33 through 35,
and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 16, 24 and 32.
Razavi describes a method and system in which an applet displays a window 420 outside
of the constraints of the browser application window 410 via the use of a class (Figure 4;
Abstract; column 3, lines 13 through 18; column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 30; column 5,
lines 1 through 20).
With respect to the teachings of Razavi, the examiner makes the following findings
(answer, page 5):
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007