Appeal No. 2000-0467
Application 08/511,645
Federal Circuit Court stated that because the Appellant did not
contest the merits of the rejections in his brief to the Federal
Circuit court, the issue is waived.
We have carefully considered the objective evidence as well
as the prior art relied upon by the Examiner. We find that
Appellant’s claim 1 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 6 and 10 through 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Now we turn to the rejection of claims 18 through 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Berry and Owens.
Appellant argues that “[c]laim 18 specifically recites that
the operation is ‘always’ a move if the user has not initiated a
modification.” See page 7, lines 21-22 of the Brief. Appellant
further argues that “[t]he technique described in the Berry
reference does not provide such consistent behavior across all
forms of source and target media, as does the claimed invention.”
See page 7, lines 22-25 of the Brief. Appellant then argues that
Berry,
(See, for example, page 435, right column, third full
paragraph; and page 450, right column, first full
paragraph.) . . . [does] not suggest that a move
operation is always performed when an object is dropped
on a container. Rather, these portions of the
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007