Appeal 2007-0976
Application 09/981,835
Claims 1 through 7, 9 through 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Price in view of Golovchinski
and Lawton.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed September 29, 2006) and
to Appellants' Brief (filed June 12, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed October 23,
2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 16, 18, and 19.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that Appellants argue all of the
claims together. Accordingly, we will treat the claims as a single group,
with claim 1 as representative.
The Examiner admits (Answer 6) that Price fails to disclose expressly
that the source and target documents are pre-selected by the user before the
source document is annotated. The Examiner (Answer 6) asserts that
Lawton teaches pre-selecting a target file and that it would have been
obvious to modify Price with the teachings of Lawton.
Appellants contend (Br. 10-12 and Reply Br. 1-4) that modifying
Price to have the user pre-select the target document before annotating the
source document would render Price unsuitable for its intended purpose and
change the principle of operation. All of Appellants' arguments are directed
to the contention that Price cannot be modified. The only issue before us,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013