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.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007