Appeal 2007-0700
Application 09/159,509
Patent 5,559,995
16. In the First Amendment at page 9, Appellants further argued the
following:
[Wexelblat] is directed towards the editing of information
contained within a cyberspace, as opposed to virtual
worlds drawn using wirefame objects and polygon
objects.
The argument directly above addressed Finding of Fact 14 limitation (3)
found in Appellants’ amended claim 8.
17. On December 31, 1995, the Examiner entered a Final Office
Action (“Final Action”).
18. Amended claims 1-9 were rejected on various grounds.
19. Claims 1-7 were again rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wexelblat (which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)).
20. Claims 8-9 were again rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wexelblat and Richburg (which is prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e)).
21. On March 4, 1996, the Examiner conducted an interview with
Appellants’ representative. The Examiner entered an Interview Summary
into the record stating:
Examiner and applicant’s representative discussed their
interpretations of the breadth of Wexelblat’s teachings.
22. On April 2, 1996, Appellants filed a Second Amendment (“the
Second Amendment”) responding to the Examiner's Final Office Action.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013