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