Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 25
Application No. 08/289,134
Faced with the deficiency, the examiner alleges, "Agulnick,
however, inherently discloses a plurality of characters being
displayed on the display and the operation serves to enter a
straight line with a predetermined relationship with respect
to at least two characters, the command aligning at least two
characters for representation (column 10, lines 21-63)."
(Id.)
The reference, however, does not support the allegation.
Although the section of Agulnick on which the examiner relies
teaches moving attributes of objects, col. 10 ll. 24-25, there
is no suggestion of aligning the objects. In view of this
deficiency, we are not persuaded that teachings from the prior
art would have suggested the limitations of "a plurality of
characters are displayed on said display, and said operation
serves to enter a straight line with a predetermined
relationship with respect to said at least two characters,
said command aligning said at least two characters for
representation." Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim
11 as obvious over Capps in view of Shojima further in view of
Agulnick. Next, and last, we address claims 14-17.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007