Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
line and circle at the bottom of page 121) and then to choose
either a rectangular or polar array. For a polar array, the user
defines the center point of the array, the number of items in the
array, and the angle between items in the array (or the angle to
fill with objects) (pages 123-24, sec. 5.2.7.2).
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over HP-DESIGN and AutoCAD.
The examiner's rejection is contained in the Final Rejection
(Paper No. 20) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 25).
Appellant's position is set forth in the Brief (Paper No. 24).
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellant defines two groups of claims (Brief, page 10):
(1) claims 1-15 are stated to stand or fall together; and
(2) claim 16 is stated to stand alone. Claim 1 is taken as
representative of claims 1-15.
Claims 1-15
The level of ordinary skill is not argued, so we find the
references to be representative of the level of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214
(CCPA 1978) ("the PTO usually must evaluate both the scope and
content of the prior art and the level of ordinary skill solely
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007