Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
point out that the features illustrated in
Fig. 8.2 pertain to a different system than
the system the Office Action relies on to
show other recited features including the
static icon. Appellant submits that there
is no disclosed or suggested reason to
combine the features of these two systems,
and to further combine the result of the
combination with the system disclosed in
Levine. (Brief-page 27.)
Here again, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the
reasons recited supra. We agree with the Examiner that the
claim limitations are met in our discussion of the group 1 and
group 2 claims. And again, regarding our consideration of
MOTIVATION supra, we find it would have been obvious, when
considering the references as a whole, to combine the
advantages of each reference into one system, the sum equaling
no more than the combined parts. Thus, the rejection of the
group 12 claims is sustained, that is claim 69.
Finally, with respect to the group 13 claims, Appellants
state "Reasons set forth above for the claims in Group 10
apply here as well as the reasons set forth above for the
claims in Group 5." (Brief-page 28). Likewise, and for the
same reasons we sustained the rejection of the group 10 and
27
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007