Appeal No. 2006-3121
Application No. 10/165,083
The examiner relies on the following references:
Burner et al. (Burner) 6,282,548 Aug. 28, 2001
Jones et al. (Jones) 6,493,731 Dec. 10, 2002
(filed Jan. 27, 1999)
Screenshots of Microsoft (MS) Word 2000, Microsoft Corp., 1999 (“Word”).
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-10, 17-25, and 29-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Burner and further in view of Word.
2. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.1
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the prior art rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants' arguments set
1 This rejection was first presented in the examiner’s answer and therefore constitutes a new
ground of rejection under 37 CFR 41.39(a)(2). Although the examiner did not strictly comply with
the requirements of MPEP § 1207.03(I), we nonetheless consider this procedural error harmless
since appellants responded to the merits of the new ground of rejection in the reply brief [see
reply brief, pages 2 and 3].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013