Appeal No.2002-1765
Application No. 09/182,091
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §103
because the examiner has clearly failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103.
At page 3 of the answer, the examiner allegedly applies Barker to independent
claims 1 and 9 by stating that Barker discloses “an integrated multiple data editor for
compound documents, containing text, graphics, and tables;” that the editor “facilitates
manipulation of a group of diverse object sets within a single displayable area on a
page of a document” and simplifies formatting; that the editor “works with a page layout
philosophy,” that all pages “reside within a document object,” that objects are “data-
specific entities that the user can manipulate on the page,” that object sets “may be
moved into positions on the page,” that the arrangement of objects “creates a structure
called a superblock,” that the superblock “is any displayable area containing two or
more object sets,” that the creation of this structure “greatly simplifies integration of
different data types on the page for the user and allows the user to manipulate a group
of object sets within a single displayable area on the page,” and that the superblock “is
treated as an object set,” citing the abstract, column 5, lines 21-29 and Figure 2 of
Barker.
Not one statement within the examiner’s rationale attempts to specifically apply
any teaching of Barker to the particular terms of the claims. While Barker may have a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007