Appeal No. 1996-3750
Application No. 08/321,058
annotation between pages in order to keep an annotation
aligned with a selected location in the body of the word
processor object. Accordingly, there is no prima facie case
of obviousness established with regard to the subject matter
of instant claims 3 and 15 and we will not sustain the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
evidence supplied by the examiner.
Turning now to claims 4 and 16, these claims add the
limitation of adding a space in the body so as to maintain
alignment of the annotation with the selected location. We
find no such teaching or suggestion in any of the applied
references. The examiner, again, relies on the “strongly
bound” language of Cassorla for a conclusion of obviousness
because “adding space so as to maintain the alignment would
have further indicated the bounded nature of the annotation
with the associated text” [answer-page 5]. The examiner
further contends that it “is well-known” [answer-page 11] to
add or delete space for aesthetic and practical document
layout and it would have been obvious "to have incorporated
the addition of space in order to provide alignment of an
annotation and its proper selection location" [answer-page
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007