Appeal No. 1998-3126 5
Application No. 08/479,569
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants (brief, page 6) have grouped the claims as
follows: claims 16-22 and 25-28; claim 23; claims 29, 31-37, 39-
41, and 51-53; claim 42; claim 43; claims 54, 55, and 57-59; and
claim 56. We will address the groups in the order that they have
been argued by appellants and the examiner. To the extent that
appellants have argued more than one claim within a group, we
will separately address the claims additionally argued.
We consider first the rejection of claims 54-59 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Ludwig considered with
Microsoft and Reed. We begin with claims 54, 55, and 57-59.
Appellants present specific arguments with respect to
independent claim 54. Accordingly, we consider claim 54 to be
representative of the group. The examiner’s position (answer,
page 4) is that Ludwig shows user selectable functions and an
audio retrieval program generating an audio description of
topics, but that Ludwig “does not show a help key and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007