Appeal No. 1996-3750
Application No. 08/321,058
With regard to claims 3 and 15, these claims further
limit the step and means for aligning the annotation with the
selected location to “moving a portion of said annotation to a
next page.” While the applied references are all directed to
making annotations in a word processing document, none of
these references discloses or suggests “moving a portion of
said annotation to a next page” in keeping the annotation
aligned with the selected portion of the body of the word
processing object.
The examiner contends that since Cassorla mentions that
the annotations are “strongly bound” to the structure relative
to which the annotation is positioned [column 3, lines 46-49],
movement of the annotation to a next page “would have further
indicated the bounded nature of the annotation with the
associated text” [answer-page 4]. We disagree. We find no
nexus between Cassorla’s recitation of annotations being
“strongly bound” to a structure and the examiner’s conclusion
that this would have led the artisan to provide for “moving a
portion of said annotation to a next page,” as recited in
claims 3 and 15. The examiner has provided absolutely no
evidence of a suggestion by the applied references to split an
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007