Appeal No. 2004-0644
Application No. 09/222,209
independent claim 1. Therefore, we look to the appellants’ arguments to rebut this
prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants argue that there is no motivation to
combine the teachings of Moran1 and Capps since Moran1 is a freeform graphics
system and Capps is a text-based system for insertion into a string of text information.
(See brief at page 4.) The examiner maintains that both Moran1 and Capps teach the
implementation of user interfaces with text and graphic entries and that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine
these teachings. We agree with the examiner that the two references teach and
suggest the user interface for data input and manipulation and that skilled artisans
would have looked to each of the teachings for data input and manipulation.
Appellants argue that Capps does not teach the steps of interpreting a structure
of the freeform graphic elements or editing that structure. (See brief at page 4.)
Appellants argue that the specification refers to the interpretation of the structure as “the
detection of spatial relationships between the FGE’s (Freeform Graphic Elements) to
organize them into at least one structured element such as a list, table, outline, etc.
(Page 10, lines 23-28.) Capps does not disclose the organization or even the existence
of such structured elements.” From our review of the cited portion of the specification,
we do not find that the term “structure” with respect to FGE’s has been specifically
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007