Appeal No. 2006-1627
Application No. 09/934,945
31 is likewise sustained because appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for
these claims apart from the patentability arguments presented for claims 12, 20 and 28.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 16, 24 and 32, we agree with the
appellant’s argument (brief, page 10; reply brief, page 7) that “[w]hen the applet is executed
again by the browser, only one window can be reopened.” Neither the pop-up window nor the
dialog box in Razavi is part of the history of the applet (column 3, lines 23 through 25; column
6, lines 41 through 45; column 8, lines 15 through 18), and neither window would be reopened
when the browser executes the applet again. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims
16, 24 and 32 is reversed.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 17, 25 and 33, appellant argues (brief, page 11)
“[n]owhere does Razavi teach that the windows remain open when the browser switches to a
new web site; on the contrary, Razavi teaches that the application closes these windows, and
automatically closes the applet as well.” Appellant’s argument to the contrary notwithstanding,
we agree with the examiner’s position (answer, page 4) that “[t]he applet window continues . . .
open after the user switches to a new web site (7:45-45 [sic, 47]),” and that “[a]ll windows are
closed responsive to an exit (CLOSE) command (7:50-55).” Based upon the teachings of
Razavi, the obviousness rejection of claims 17, 25 and 33 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 18, 26 and 34 is sustained because the pop-up
window or dialog box will provide information to respond to an event or status displayed in the
applet window.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007