Appeal No. 1998-1389 Page 19
Application No. 08/553232
allotted layout space, and the attributes within the alloted
layout space are attributes of the object being entered by the
user, and not the attributes of the pasteboard . However,3
even if the pasteboard of Smith provides at least one image
attribute of the pasteboard for forming the representation, we
still find no suggestion to have provided Brotsky's pasteboard
(output sink node or passive viewer window) with at least one
image attribute to modify the representation, because Brotsky
has no reason to override the attributes of the source and
transform nodes developed in the ACG. We find no suggestion
in the different approaches of Brotsky and Smith that would
have lead a skilled artisan to have modified the output sink
node or passive viewer window with image attributes. We
therefore conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 30-48,
50, 52, and 53. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 30-48,
50, 52, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
At the Oral hearing, appellants' counsel was asked by the Board to3
explain why Smith does not anticipate claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Our
understanding of counsel's response was that Smith defines content objects and
layout objects, which together are fully formed into an image. The pasteboard
of Smith has separate attributes for each of the content and layout objects,
with no separate pasteboard for each, and therefore, there is no overriding
according to pasteboard attributes.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007