Appeal 2007-0145
Application 10/183,797
Hale. The window control method in Maddalozzo is not necessary to the
rejection. When Hale disables the peripheral input to the computer, it is
necessarily "inactivating the protected window" as well as any other
windows which happen to be open. Similarly, when Hale deactivates the
display by blanking the screen or displaying a unique pattern (col. 13,
ll. 28-34), it is necessarily "inactivating the protected window" as well as
any other windows which happen to be open. Hale discloses reactivating the
display using a password. This combination meets the limitations of
claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 14-19, as broadly interpreted. Therefore, the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 14-19 is affirmed.
The combination of Hale and Maddalozzo discloses deactivating the
display by blanking the screen or displaying a unique pattern, and thus
inactivating whatever windows are open, but it does not disclose that "the
inactivating comprises minimizing the protected window," as recited in
claims 3 and 12, or "the inactivating comprises closing the protected
window," as recited in claims 4 and 13. The Examiner applies Shinya.
Shinya discloses minimizing an inactive window after a first period of time
and then closing the window after a second period of time (cover page under
"Solution"). Shinya does not disclose "inactivating" a window; the window
is already inactive. However, the combination of Hale and Maddalozzo only
suggests blanking the whole screen or displaying a unique pattern on the
whole screen, which inactivates all windows, not an individual window.
That is, the claim language is met because it is very broad. In these
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013