Appeal No. 2004-0228
Application No. 09/348,411
We will sustain the rejection of claim 15, and of claims 17-
20, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in accordance with
appellants’ grouping at page 3 of the principal brief.
While appellants argue the lack of a showing of the three
components of the ad objects in Hoyle, the examiner has
reasonably pointed out where each component is to be found or
suggested in Hoyle’s disclosure and appellants’ only response to
the examiner’s rationale is that the third component, i.e., the
“display attributes” is not taught or suggested. However, the
examiner has clearly and reasonably pointed to “attributes” such
as priority level and the maximum number of permitted displays in
Hoyle. Appellants do not deny that Hoyle shows certain display
attributes in Figure 5, but, rather, they argue that the
attributes in Hoyle are not “attributes,” as claimed, but, rather
“perceived characteristics” because the claimed “display
attributes” include “controlling instructions such as, for
example, ‘fade, wash, sweep, fly, blinds, box, checkerboard,
crawl, dissolve, peak, spiral, split, stretch, strips, swivel,
wipe, zoom’.”
We agree with the examiner that Hoyle clearly shows “display
attributes” and that the specific display attributes now cited by
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007