Appeal 2007-2343
Application 09/928,856
See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
1. Rejection of claims 9-12, 25-28, and 38-40 over Puskala,
Martin, and Graham
Appellants rely on the same arguments previously raised for claim 1
and assert that Graham adds nothing to the combination of Puskala and
Martin that would have made the subject matter of these claims unpatentable
(Br. 17; Reply Br. 7-8). Additionally, Appellants contend that even if
Graham taught using “tokens,” the combination is still improper since
Puskala teaches away from customization of its predefined messages (Reply
Br. 8). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Puskala does allow the
user modifications to the predefined messages and therefore, may properly
be combined with Martin and Graham to benefit from minimized text entry
as a result of using tokens.
Therefore, in light of our findings above, we find that the teachings of
Puskala and Martin combined with Graham suggest the subject matter of
Claims 9-12, 25-28, and 38-40.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Because Appellants have failed to point to any error in the Examiner’s
position, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 8, 13-19,
23, 24, 29-34, and 37 over Puskala and Martin and of claims 9-12, 25-28,
and 38-40 over Puskala and Martin, and in view of Graham.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013