Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
stamps and other items on the desktop can be moved." (Brief-
page 23). We agree with Appellants. Although "placed in any
position" could, in the abstract, mean rotational position, in
the context of Levine we only see support for lateral or
vertical positioning. Thus we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of the group 4 claims, that is claims 27 and 60.
Since claims 28 and 61 depend directly and only from these
claims, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection as to
these claims also.
With regard to the group 5 claims, Appellants argue the
references to not recite or suggest the claim 17 features of
adjusting to the maximum horizontal and vertical dimensions of
the stack depiction (Brief-pages 24 and 25). The Examiner
responds that Levine, in column 6, lines 54-61, suggests
aligning images in stacks. "This does not preclude the
adjusting images in a horizontal and/or vertical direction . .
." (Answer-page 5). We agree with Appellants "Whether or not
a reference precludes a feature, of course, is not the proper
test for obviousness;" (Brief-page 25). However, the
Examiner’s cited section of Levine does meet the claim
limitation. The cited portion of Levine states "Upon the user
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007