Appeal No. 2004-1365
Application No. 09/139,808
Ho in view of McInerney. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the
Brief1 and the answer (dated October 22, 2003) for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 11
through 13, 18, 22, 54 through 57, 59, 62 through 65 and 67 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 nor will we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 19, 52, 53, 58, 60, 61,
66, 68 and 69 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues, on page 7 of the brief:
In Ho the data entry form is represented as an object. By contrast, claim
11 defines a method used for editing objects. More specifically, claim 11
defines a method used for editing a “programmable property of the
computer-implemented object”
1This decision is based upon the appeal brief filed on September 22, 2003 (certified as
being mailed on September 15, 2003, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.8(a)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007