Appeal No. 97-2477
Application 08/212,908
On this record, then, it cannot be said that the examiner has
made out a prima facie case for a rejection based on lack of
written description in the specification. What we have is
merely the examiner’s conclusion which is not based on any
reasoning or underlying factual findings. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1-24 for lack of written description in
the specification as filed cannot be sustained. It suffices
to say only that the examiner has not discharged his duty of
supporting the rejections of the appellant’s claims with
adequate reasons and factual findings capable of review on
appeal.
The rejection of claims 1-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over prior art
The appellant has presented three separate arguments, at
least one of which identifies error or deficiency in the
examiner’s rejection.
First, the appellant argues that neither Dunn nor Watkins
discloses use of a fixed and limited number of descriptors
drawn from an icon library. According to the appellant, Dunn
allows icons to be added and the number of icons in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007