Appeal No. 94-3603
Application 08/001,121
application file; and (4) claims 33-36, which are directed to
apparatus in means-plus-function language. The examiner's
statement that appellants have failed to present arguments in
support of the separate groups (Examiner's Answer, page 2) is in
error for the reasons stated by appellants (Reply Brief, page 3).
Nevertheless, since the examiner generally addresses the claim
limitations, we decide the case rather than remanding it.
Obviousness
Appellant argues that Kita fails to teach nearly every
element of the claims but limits the discussion to a few
significant elements (Brief, page 10): "Specifically, the patent
to Kita et al. fails to reasonably suggest the following elements
of all the claims: (1) 'executing a selected search' (global or
local) as detailed in the claims, and (2) 'receiving a search
string selection input by interaction of a pointer with the
display screen." With respect to limitation (1), we note that
independent claim 20 recites only a string search, not a global
or local string search. With respect to limitation (2), we note
that independent claim 33 does not recite "receiving a search
string selection input by interaction of a pointer with the
display screen" but does recite a string search.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007