Appeal No. 2006-0641
Application No. 09/416,536
such a pre-assignment of the graphics portions, Anderson is
incapable of “assigning a table portion to a graphics portion.”
In response to the appellant’s argument, the examiner indicates
(answer, page 3) that Anderson at column 9, lines 53 and 54,
column 10, lines 14 through 26 and 38 through 49 and column 17,
lines 1 through 11 teaches such an assignment of table portions
to a graphics portion as claimed. In the referenced portions,
Anderson teaches that multiple pages of the spreadsheet can be
grouped or assigned together as “table portions” by selecting a
range of graphics portions (e.g., tabs A through K) (column 9,
lines 44 through 50), and that the user can specify or assign a
particular cell in each of the grouped sheets to one or more
“graphics portions” (e.g., cell C4 in graphics portions/tabs A
through K) (column 9, line 66 through column 10, line 14; column
17, lines 1 through 11). Accordingly, the anticipation rejection
of claim 1 based upon the teachings of Anderson is sustained.
The anticipation rejection of claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16,
18 and 20 through 23 is likewise sustained because appellant has
chosen to let these claims stand or fall with claim 1 (brief,
pages 3, 4, and 7).
Turning next to the anticipation rejection of claim 25 based
upon the teachings of Anderson, appellant argues (brief, page 9)
that “Anderson does not disclose enabling a user to select
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007