Appeal No. 1997-1652
Application 07/942,971
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections of certain claims under 35
U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 generally for the reasons set forth by
appellant in the brief.
Appellant's prior art assessment generally indicates that
graphical objects were individually selectable and that each
graphical object has various selectable attributes, where each
attribute in turn has various selectable formats. We
generally agree with appellant's observation at page 11 of the
brief that the examiner has not clearly set forth what aspects
of the Rubine reference correspond to these terms, viz.,
graphical object, attribute, and format of an attribute. We
also agree with appellant's observation earlier on that page
that while, on the one hand, the examiner has indicated
various corresponding aspects of the Rubine reference to
certain claims on appeal, this is done without any explanation
of how the cited portion actually corresponds to the quoted
portion of the claim in structure and function.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007