Appeal No. 96-3260 Page 4
Application No. 08/134,214
a distance away from said visually modified area...” or
“engaging a pointing means at least approximately on said
border...,” as required by independent claim 1.
While the examiner recognizes this deficiency in
Baumgarten, the examiner contends that it would have been
obvious to have used such a border instead of the highlighted
block in Baumgarten as
it would have been an obvious choice to display the
selected portion so that it would be visually
aesthetic, as the buffered border was essentially a
box that surrounded the highlighted area, and the use
of a box to show a selection would have been a common
technique [answer-page 4].
As is clear from the instant claim language, the border is
provided around previously selected objects. Those objects may
have been selected by highlighting. Thus, it is clear to us
that if the highlighting employed by Baumgarten has any
relevance to the instant claimed subject matter, it would be
akin to the selection step of claim 1 and not relevant to the
provision of a border. There is absolutely no suggestion, in
Baumgarten, of providing a border around the previously
selected, or highlighted, objects and we find the examiner’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007