Appeal No. 1999-2723
Application 08/674,082
not a note at the time that it is moved across the boundary of
window 602. Therefore, the examiner’s finding that Darnell
teaches the movement of a note across boundaries is in error.
As noted above, Darnell does not teach any movement of the
notes created therein. Since the examiner’s finding is
erroneous and since the examiner has presented no arguments
with respect to the obviousness of the actual differences
between the teachings of Darnell and the claimed invention, we
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of any of these
independent claims or of the claims which depend therefrom and
are rejected on the same basis.
We now consider the rejection of claims 145-150, 180-
186, 193-199 and 205-211 based on the teachings of Darnell,
Gough and Johnston. This rejection is explained on pages 20-
23 of the final rejection mailed on September 29, 1998 and
incorporated into the examiner’s answer [page 4]. Since this
rejection relies on the examiner’s erroneous findings with
respect to Darnell, and since Johnston does not overcome the
factual deficiencies of this record, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 145-150, 180-186, 193-199 and
205-211.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007