Appeal No. 1996-3750
Application No. 08/321,058
object in Norwood, or in Cassorla or Barker for that matter,
as claimed. While, it may be “well-known” that portions of
documents may be separately formatted (e.g., different
paragraphs in a document may have different fonts), the
examiner has proffered no evidence that it would have been
obvious to format an annotation separately and independently
of the body of a word processing object where such annotation
is in typed form and is located in a side margin and adjacent
to a selected location in the body of the word processing
object. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 10 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 11 and 23 depend from claims 10 and 22,
respectively. Therefore, since we have not sustained the
rejection of claims 10 and 22, we also will not sustain the
rejection of claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
the same prior art references.
Claims 12 and 24 recite that the body is segmented into
pages and that a plurality of annotations is located “in
alternating right and left side margins on sequential pages.”
The examiner relies on Figure 2 of Barker showing an
annotation in a left side margin and concludes therefrom that
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007