Appeal 2007-0262
Application 09/925,258
discussed event messages, would not be considered to be “requests” at least
as much as the server to user terminal communications described by
Appellants would be considered “requests.”
We similarly find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ contention (Br. 13-
14) that Trueblood lacks any disclosure of the claimed feature of enabling
user input of information into the entry panel window to effect continuation
of the application. We agree with the Examiner (Answer 10-11) that, at the
very least, Trueblood’s teaching (col. 6, ll. 24-27) of enabling a user to enter
information into displayed entry panel windows to perform such tasks as
moving and resizing windows and starting a new application would satisfy
such enabling feature, at least in the manner broadly set forth by Appellants.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Trueblood, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 23, as well as dependent
claims 2, 5, 12, 15, and 22 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Appellants’ arguments (Br. 14, 15) in response to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 based on the
combination of Trueblood and Wilks initially reiterate those arguments
made alleging the deficiencies of Trueblood in disclosing the claimed
“detecting” and “enabling” features. For all of the reasons discussed, supra,
we find such arguments to be unpersuasive.
We also agree with Examiner (Answer 12) that the teaching of Wilks
(col. 5, ll. 4-30) of bringing displayed windows into and out of focus at
predetermined intervals satisfies the claimed intermittent window display
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013