Appeal No. 2002-1960
Application No. 08/821,321
variable reading rate. In that regard, contrary to the
Examiner’s assertion, Parks determines changes to the script
based on reading speed associated with a certain audience and
Chippendale merely marks the script to indicate the number and
nature of recorded takes.
We note that, similar to claim 1, independent claim 10 also
recites means for indicating the overflow text and the extent of
displaying it relative to the non-overflow text based on a
variable reading rate. Based on our analysis above, we find that
the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness and accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1-10 over Klingler, Parks and Chippendale
cannot be sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007