Appeal No. 96-3260 Page 6
Application No. 08/134,214
For their part, with regard to claim 9, appellants
concede, at page 8 of the brief, that Baumgarten checks for too
many spaces but say “at best a user can only replace or remove
one type of object break at a time.” In fact, this is all that
the claim requires. While the claim calls for replacing “all”
object breaks, there is, contrary to appellants’ assertion, no
recited requirement in the claim that the replacement of “all”
object breaks occur simultaneously. Each time the technique of
Baumgarten for replacing two spaces with one space or replacing
two hard returns with a single hard return is exercised, there
is a reformatting of objects in Baumgarten.
Accordingly, appellants' argument with regard to the
patentability of claim 9 is unpersuasive and we will sustain
the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regard to claims 10 through 13, appellants argue that
these claims are directed to an operation of sorting objects in
a sequence in a sorted array that is a function of the position
of each of the objects on the computer screen and that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007