Appeal 2007-0262
Application 09/925,258
of Trueblood. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to the
illustrations in Figures 2 and 13A of Trueblood, as well as the disclosure at
column 6, lines 24-49 and column 7, lines 13-19 of Trueblood.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of
Trueblood so as to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Initially,
Appellants contend (Br. 11-12) that the “always on top” window feature of
Trueblood teaches away from Appellants’ claimed invention since a user
could not work a second window application while waiting for a first
window log-in screen since it would be at least partially blocked by the
“always on top” first window. Aside from the fact that a “teaching away”
argument is inappropriate in an anticipation rejection, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellants’ argument inaccurately characterizes the
disclosure of Trueblood. As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer 9),
Trueblood provides (e.g., Figure 2) for the full non-overlapping display of
multiple “always visible” windows, thereby permitting a user to work
multiple applications.
We also agree with the Examiner (Answer 9-10) that Appellants’
argument (Br. 12) that Trueblood does not disclose the display of a log-in
panel in which a user is requested to input identification information in order
to continue with an accessed application is not commensurate with the scope
of the claimed invention. As argued by the Examiner, the language of each
of the appealed independent claims 1, 11, and 23 does not require a “log-in”
panel window but, rather, merely an “entry” panel window. We find no
error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the displayed windows (e.g. col. 6,
ll. 24-27) in Trueblood which require user entry of information as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013