Ex parte BEER et al. - Page 10

          Appeal No. 1997-1199                                                        
          Application No. 08/309,366                                                  

          obviousness rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 5                
          to 13 over Tyne and Sanchez-Frank.                                          
               Next, we take the other independent claim, 14.  This is                
          an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1.  Here               
          too, we make the same observation regarding the order in which              
          the apparatus elements are recited.  The clause containing the              
          “means for controlling . . . the sets of attributes in said                 
          template types pane” should precede the clause containing the               
          “means for controlling said processor to select one set from                
          the sets of attributes for display.”  Again, we leave it to                 
          the Examiner to employ his examining expertise in dealing with              
          this issue.                                                                 
          Otherwise, for the same rationale as claim 1 above, we do not               
          sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 14 and its                       
          dependent claims 18 to 27 over Tyne and Sanchez-Frank.                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007