Appeal No. 2000-1913
Application 08/753,081
a bitmap image of a non-rectangular object as claimed. However,
this only teaches to the artisan that objects may be removed by
the feature of incorporation of one object into another.
Although the noted removing step at the end of representative
claim 1 on appeal does not require the removal of all areas of a
standard window previously defined earlier in the claim as we
quoted above, the teaching relied upon by the examiner clearly
does not remove areas of a standard window, but only objects.
The examiner's remarks in the paragraph bridging pages 3 and
4 of the answer are not persuasive of the obviousness of the
subject matter of the claims on appeal. The examiner's positions
here are merely conjecture. No additional prior art reference is
relied on by the examiner to apply the drag and drop removal
feature of displayed objects to remove displayed areas of a
standard window per se. In order for us to sustain the
examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to
resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejections. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
This we decline to do.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007