Appeal No. 1999-2605
Application No. 08/788,669
support the conclusion of obviousness. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d
1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In our
opinion, any suggestion to modify the disclosure of Bender to add
an automatic pausing feature could only come from an improper
attempt to reconstruct Appellant’s invention in hindsight.
Lastly, we have reviewed the QUE reference which has been
cited by the Examiner to address the “refresh bar” features of
dependent claims 6 and 11. We find nothing, however, in the
disclosure of the QUE publication which would overcome the innate
deficiencies of Bender discussed supra.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007