Appeal No. 2001-1764 Page 9
Application No. 08/784,670
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Here, we do not understand the
examiner’s assertion. The passage of Smith on which the examiner relies, for example,
merely describes Figures 12-14 as follows:
FIG. 12 is a graph showing the taxonomy of a
sloteditorassubcommandmenu object 1200.
FIG. 13 illustrates the class object definition of a sloteditorcommandmenu
object 1205.
FIG. 14 is a reproduction of a window display associated with a
fastobjecteditor in which commands "pop up" in response to selection of
captions such as partially obscured caption 1400 in FIG. 14.
Col. 3, l. 60 et seq. Absent an intelligible explanation, the examiner fails to present a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 13, 14,
23, and 39.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 9-12, 16, 17, 25, 29, 31-33, 36, and
43 is affirmed, while the rejection of claims 13, 14, 23, and 39 is reversed. Our
affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the brief. Arguments not made
therein are neither before us nor at issue but are considered waived. No time for taking
any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007