Appeal No. 96-1842
Application 08/193,356
1992).
As indicated by the cases just cited, the examiner has
at least two responsibilities in setting forth a rejection
under
35 U.S.C. § 103. First, the examiner must identify all the
differences between the claimed invention and the teachings of
the prior art. Second, the examiner must explain why the
identified differences would have been the result of an
obvious modification of the prior art. In our view, the
examiner has not properly addressed his first responsibility
so that it is impossible that he has successfully fulfilled
his second responsibility.
Each of independent claims 1, 5 and 9 recites that a
second window is movable in concert with a point on a display
while maintaining a selected horizontal and vertical distance
between the second window and the point, and the second window
excluding the point.
With respect to Kinata, the examiner considers the
“Metals-Space Between” window to be the first claimed window
and Table 9-1 to be the second window [answer, page 3]. The
insertion point of the word processing program is considered
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007