Appeal 2007-1571
Application 10/198,335
Our review of the disclosure of Prichard, however, finds ample
evidence to support the Examiner’s position. While Prichard’s Figure 8
“screen shot” of the HTML editor arguably shows the editing of interface
content format, such as date and time formatting, as argued by Appellants, it
is apparent to us that the disclosure of Prichard is not limited to the
formatting of interface content information but, rather, also provides for the
editing of the layout or arrangement of the interface content information.
For example, Prichard discloses in paragraph [0016], lines 11-13, that
the XML text files define “data format, relative location on the screen,
presentation format, and application data identifier(s) for each display field.”
(Emphasis added). Further, at lines 6-9 of paragraph [0032], Prichard
discloses that the user interface definition files 12 “comprise general screen
layout text files written in HTML format ….” (Emphasis added). Prichard
also discloses at lines 25-27 of paragraph [0032] the use of web scripting
software enabling a user to dynamically change or edit files by interacting
with the displayed graphical user interface. Further evidence in support of
the Examiner’s position appears in the description in Prichard’s paragraph
[0047] of the remote service center embodiment in which a service
technician can edit interface data such as screen layout information.
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ contention (Br. 10)
that Prichard does not disclose the editing of a “particular” interface layout
since, according to Appellants, Prichard is limited at best to adding new files
with a new layout. We agree with the Examiner (Answer 15), however, that
Prichard provides a disclosure (paragraphs [0032], [0033], and [0047]) of
selecting and editing existing interface screen layout definition files.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013