Appeal No. 1998-0669 Page 9
Application No. 08/507,194
In view of the ambiguity of the reference’s disclosure
and the operation of known word processing programs, we are
not persuaded that teachings from the prior art would appear
to have suggested the claimed limitation of dividing the image
of a document into different areas. The examiner’s
interpretation amounts to speculation or an unfounded
assumption; he has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejections of claims
1-12 and 15-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We next address the
obviousness of claims 13, 14, 28, and 29.
Obviousness of Claims 13, 14, 28, and 29
Regarding claims 13, 14, 28, and 29, the appellant
argues, “Watanabe et al clearly does not disclose nor [sic]
suggest the inputting of an image of the document including a
plurality of columns and recognizing empty space next to one
of said columns.”
(Reply Br. at 6.) The examiner replies, “The reference also
teaches ‘the column alignment means that the bottom columns
are aligned in the column work’ (column 9, lines 25-28).”
(Examiner’s Answer at 7-8).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007