Appeal 2007-0761
Application 09/907,610
3. The Examiner has read the elements of the rejected claims on
Kennelly on an element by element basis. (Answer 3 to 8).
Appellants have raised a number of challenges to this rejection. (Brief
16 to 23).
4. Appellants indicate that Examiner has erred because certain elements
of the claims are not in the Kennelly reference. They indicate (Brief
18 ff) that these omissions include control text for the GUI, IDs for the
plurality of languages, means for generating the user interface,
language specific interface attributes. The Examiner has supported
his rejection by a recitation of the claimed elements in the reference
(Answer 3-8, 12).
5. Appellants argue that the reference requires an administrator’s page,
which is avoided by the Appellants’ invention. However, the
Examiner answers this objection, (Answer 10), by pointing out that
the user makes his selection of languages right on the user interface.
6. Appellants argue that unexpected results are achieved by the
Appellants’ system. (Brief 22).
7. Regarding the dependent claims, as discussed in the Brief, page 22,
the Examiner has addressed each of the recited limitation on pages 4
to 8 of the Answer, in which we do not find that the Examiner has
erred.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013