Appeal No. 97-0191
Application 08/331,151
We now consider the rejection of claims 11-14 and 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sklarew in view of Norwood. From the Examiner’s statement of the rejection
(Answer, pages 7-9), it is apparent that Norwood was applied for the sole purpose of addressing the
claimed paragraph editing and modification features which the Examiner found lacking in Sklarew. The
Norwood reference is directed to the annotation of text documents with handwritten notes; however,
we can find no teaching or suggestion of editing existing text or insertion of text into existing paragraphs.
Our review of Norwood reveals no disclosure that would overcome the innate deficiencies of Sklarew
and, therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11-14 and 36-38.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007