Appeal No. 2004-0644
Application No. 09/222,209
conversion back to FGE’s without a final conversion to an editable text format. We note
that Moran1 teaches that it is their choice to keep the document in a freeform graphical
format rather than allowing it to remain in the structured format. Moran1 recognizes the
tradeoffs and has chosen not to take advantage of the structure. (Moran1 at page 2.)
Appellants argue that the examiner has relied upon improper hindsight
reconstruction to meet the claimed limitations. (See brief at page 5.) We disagree with
appellants. As discussed above, we find that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Moran1
and Capps and do not find that Capps is a text only system as appellants maintain.
Appellants further argue that the examiner is reading the references much too broadly.
(See brief at page 5.) Rather, we find that appellants are interpreting the term
“structure” much too narrowly. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Moran1 does not deal with the editing of the text making up
the structures. (See brief at page 5.) We disagree with appellants and find that the
manipulation of the organization and rearrangement of the graphical objects making up
the structure of Moran1 would have been an editing of the structure as claimed.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007