Appeal No. 2006-3042
Application No. 10/720,494
other, and therefore cannot determine whether a series of such events is
unrelated [id.].
The examiner responds that when Amro’s system determines that an
event is neither a spy event nor a user event, it is therefore an “unrelated” event
(i.e., another type of GUI event) and handled accordingly as shown in Step 218
in Fig. 2 [answer, page 10]. The program then loops back to the beginning of the
event handling loop to await the next event. The examiner adds that Amro’s
system monitors multiple events and displays help text corresponding to the
current event of the multiple events (i.e., a spy event) [answer, pages 10 and 11].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8,
and 17. We agree with appellant that Amro does not expressly or inherently
determine whether a series of events is unrelated and offer assistance based
upon that determination as claimed. At best, the events that are monitored in
Amro (i.e., spy events, user events, or “other events”) are isolated events –
events that are not compared with each other in succession and such
comparison used as a basis to determine whether to offer assistance. Rather,
each event is simply analyzed on its own to determine whether to offer
assistance. That is, if the program determines that a spy event occurs, then the
corresponding help text is displayed. If a user event occurs, then help text is
displayed that the user can edit and update. If neither occurs, then the event is
another type of GUI event that is handled accordingly [Amro, col. 2, line 63 – col.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013