Appeal No. 96-3059
Application No. 08/170,569
a record upon which the persuasiveness of competing arguments
can be evaluated.
In summary, we find the present record insufficient to
support the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness with respect
to independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-4 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to representative, independent claim 5,
the examiner rejects this claim in a manner similar to the
rejection of claim 1. Claim 5 differs from claim 1 in that
the displayed visual location cue indicates a prohibited area
of the document as opposed to the location of a second user.
Appellants argue that the displaying of a visual location cue
as recited in claim 5 is not suggested by the collective
teachings of Bates and Cowart for the same reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1. We agree with appellants’
arguments for essentially the same reasons discussed above in
our consideration of claim 1. Therefore, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 5-9 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007