Appeal No. 2000-0829
Application 09/079,054
and motivation for [sic] combine is explicitly disclosed by
Taylor et al in col. 4, lines 33-35 and in col. 9, lines 16-
18. Furthermore, implementation of displaying a list of
options contextually associated with a selected object is
clearly known in the art, as is disclosed in figure 4D of
the cited US patent #5,689,669... As for the appellants’
comment that Taylor’s system does not know the type of the
selected light, a review of Taylor’s disclosure shows that
the system recognizes the type of the object selected and
retrieves from memory any previously stored characteristics
or other information describing that object (col. 17, lines
45-52). Once the user has selected a light to be defined as
part of the model, the particular type of light that has
been selected is known (col. 28, lines 52-56). In one
example, a color palette contextually appropriate for a
selected object is displayed to the user for modifying the
object’s color (col. 28, line 54-59). (Answer at 7-8).
B. Discussion
The applicant in its brief indicates that claims 1-8 stand
or fall together and that claims 9-14 and 18 do not stand or fall
together. (Brief at 8-9).
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-8, 9, 10, 14, and 18 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Taylor. We reverse
the rejection of claims 11-13 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Taylor.
Our affirmance of the prior art rejection as it applies to
claims 1-8, 9, 10, 14, and 18 is based only on the arguments
presented by appellants in their brief. Arguments not raised in
the briefs are not before us, are not at issue, and are not
considered.
A reversal of the rejection on appeal of claims 11-13
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007