Appeal 2007-1571
Application 10/198,335
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Prichard, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 10, 16, and 20, as well as dependent claims
13-15, 18, and 23 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1 and 34 based on the combination of Prichard and Allor, Appellants’
arguments in response assert a failure to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claim limitations have not been taught or
suggested by the applied Prichard and Allor references. After careful review
of the disclosures of Prichard and Allor in light of the arguments of record,
however, we do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
Appellant’s arguments (Br. 14, 15, 17, 18; Reply Br. 3) do not attack
the Examiner’s proposed combination of Prichard and Allor but, rather,
focus on the alleged deficiency of the Allor reference in disclosing the
reconfiguration of an existing arrangement of a particular user interface as
claimed. According to Appellants, Allor provides for a change of an
existing interface layout by selecting a new “skin,” but has no provision for
changing the layout of an existing particular “skin.”
Our interpretation of the disclosure of Allor, however, coincides with
that of the Examiner (Answer 6-9), i.e., a disclosure of the reconfiguration of
an existing interface is provided. As disclosed by Allor at paragraph [0004],
an existing graphical user interface can be changed “on-the-fly” providing a
different look and feel to the user. This change is implemented by
combining a “content” document with a “style” document which changes the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013