Appeal 2007-1318
Application 09/726,779
element that "is operable to receive user input independently of the
prototyping application." The Examiner found that Blowers "teaches that
the user is allowed to input during execution without interference from the
prototyping application thereby showing independence." (Answer 4.)
However, because the task sequence engine 46 of Blowers is
responsible for both creating and executing the program, we agree with
Appellants that Blowers does not teach the claim limitations of
automatically generating a program "wherein the program is operable to
execute independently of the prototyping application" and automatically
generating a graphical user interface for the program with a graphical user
interface element that "is operable to receive user input independently of the
prototyping application." (Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4-6; FF 2.) Therefore, we
agree that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by
Blowers.
Claims 3-5, 7-13, 46-47, and 56-59 depend from claim 1, and we
conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims as being
anticipated by Blowers for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
Similarly to claim 1, independent claims 14, 27, and 40 recite
automatically generating a program that "is operable to execute
independently of" a prototyping application (or a first application as recited
by claim 40) and automatically generating a graphical user interface for the
program with a graphical user interface element that "is operable to receive
user input independently of" the prototyping application (or the first
application as recited by claim 40). Therefore, we conclude that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14, 27, and 40 for the reasons discussed
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013