Appeal 2007-1318
Application 09/726,779
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 48, 50, and 51 as being anticipated by
Blowers.
Regarding the obviousness rejections, we note that claims 6, 19, and
32 depend from claims 1, 14, and 27 respectively. As discussed with respect
to claims 1, 14, and 27, we agree with Appellants that Blowers does not
teach or suggest the limitations of automatically generating a program that
"is operable to execute independently of" a 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, as claimed. Therefore, we
conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 19, and 32 as being
obvious over Blowers.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that:
(1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 16-18, 20-27,
29-31, 33-40, 42-47, 49, and 52-59 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 48, 50, and 51 for
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(3) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 19, and 32 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013