Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
limitation was shown to be met by the combination of
references in the discussion regarding the group 1 claims.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the
group 2 claims, that is claims 5, 12(5), 24(5), 29(5), 30(5),
31(5), and 33(5).
With respect to the group 3 claims, Appellants state "All
of the reasons set forth above supporting patentability for
the claims in both Group 1 and Group 2 apply to the claims in
this group." (Brief-page 22.) Accordingly, for the same
reasons we sustained the rejection of the group 1 and 2
claims, we will sustain the rejection of the group 3 claims.
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6,
8(5), 9(5)
and 36.
Regarding the group 4 claims, Appellants argue, "[T]he
claims in this group recite features pertaining to page
rotation . . . Levine discloses lateral movement of stamps
using a ‘touch-and-move’ operation with an electronic stylus.
This disclosure fails to suggest rotational movement even
within the system taught in Levine. The phrase ‘placed in any
position’ referred to in the Office Action simply means that
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007