Appeal 2007-3554
Application 09/887,602
The claims on appeal should not be confined to specific embodiments
described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323,
75 USPQ2d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). During ex parte
prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow since Applicants have the power during the administrative process to
amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
ANALYSIS
In view of the teachings of Anderson (col. 7, ll. 32 and 33, col. 10, l.
58 to col. 11, l. 9), the cumulative cut, copy, paste, and clipboard teachings
of Barnes, and the automatic linking and pasting of changed spreadsheet
information in the Office publication, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the cut, copy, and paste
operation described in Anderson and Barnes to select the range of cells that
are changed in Anderson, and then automatically copy the changed range of
cells onto the Windows clipboard/buffer described in Anderson. Thereafter,
as indicated supra, the content of the clipboard/buffer would be pasted in the
identified range of cells.
Appellant’s argument that Anderson does not describe ranges is
without merit in view of Anderson’s extensive discussion of ranges in
columns 9 and 10 (Br. 6).
With respect to Appellant’s argument concerning “different relative
addresses” for at least two ranges, Anderson specifically states at column 10,
l. 58 to col. 11, line 7 that “relative and absolute cell addressing is
employed” in connection with ranges of cells (Br. 6 and 7).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013