Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
positioning one stamp on top of the other within certain
limits (e.g., covering 20%, 40% or 80% of a stamp) the
processor automatically forms an aligned stack of the two
stamps. The limit within which automatic alignment is
activated, is preferably user settable in the manner that
other program-defaults for the user are set." Thus, we
understand, however the stamps are placed one upon another to
form a stack, the processor automatically adjusts the stack
depiction to preset limits. We read these preset limits to be
preset maximum horizontal and vertical dimensions of the
stack. Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the
group 5 claims, that is claims 17(1), and 50.2
With respect to the group 6 claims, Appellants argue,
"the claims in this group recite features pertaining to
including indications of annotations in a miniature replica of
a current page . . . . Appellant is unable to find any reasons
given in the Office Action which support the rejection of
these claims;" (Brief-page 25). However, we note that the
final rejection Office Action states at pages 5 and 6 "On page
2We do not include group 5 claims 28(1) and 61 since
their rejection was found unsupported with the group 4 claims.
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007