Appeal No. 96-2616
Application 08/280,271
We agree with appellant, at page 7 of the brief, where appellant states:
What the Inoue et al. reference teaches is that although there is a
fixedly displayed text section, it is not physically fixed on the screen,
but is allowed to move left or right, up or down, depending upon the
scrolling commands executed by the user.
. . .
Further, the unscrollable section, as denoted by S and E in
Figure 2 of Inoue et al., translates up or down or left and right on
the screen during the scrolling operation, which is in direct contradiction
to the invention as claimed.
Moreover, even if Inoue could be considered as teaching a fixedly displayed text section as
intended by, and set forth in, the instant claims, the examiner has presented us with no convincing
evidence as to why the skilled artisan would have been led to make the combination. The system of
APS apparently operated just fine with no indication that there was any problem which needed to be
fixed, such as keeping the selected line in a fixed physical position of the display screen. With no
apparent reason or indication that there would have been some advantage to keeping the selected line
in a fixed physical position on the display screen, why would the artisan have been led to look to Inoue
for some teaching of a text portion fixed in a physical position on the display screen in order to modify
APS? We see no reason and the examiner has not supplied one other than “in order to allow the APS
system to retain certain part of the line or word in the file for future use” [Answer-page 4]. However,
the examiner never indicates why the APS system would want or need to “retain certain part of the line
or word” nor of what “future use” the retained part would have.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007