Appeal No. 2003-1328
Application No. 09/007,493
Claims 1-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tyler.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
October 22, 2001) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 10, filed August 3, 2001) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 12, filed February 22, 2002) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on page 157 of Tyler for showing
instructions related to moving hotspots while page 44 shows
various formatting controls (answer, page 3). The Examiner
further argues that Tyler implicitly teaches the claimed
“adjusting the display position” since any changes made to the
font size of a textual link will necessarily change the alignment
between the hypertext links (id.). Acknowledging that Tyler does
not disclose the adjustment based on the determined positions,
the Examiner concludes that “any change in the text would
necessarily require” such adjustment (answer, page 4).
Appellants argue that claim 1 relates to manipulation based
upon the determined displayed positions whereas Tyler is merely
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007