Appeal No. 1998-3385
Application No. 08/601,551
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The Examiner points to reasons for combining features
from Woolsey and Lisle in the body of the rejection. However,
no reasons are provided therein for combining features of
Vu/Post into Borovoy or for combining features from Woolsey or
Lisle into Borovoy or Vu/Post. In addition, the Examiner 2
argues that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of the cited references as "Borovoy
provides explicit teachings for annotating a 3-D model, that
Vu/Post and Woolsey provides [sic] explicit teachings for
logically and visually anchoring annotations with [a] 2-D
pointer in a 2-D image and that Lisle merely teaches that 3-D
pointers were known in that art."3
2 See page 6 of the answer.
3 See page 8 of the answer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007