Appeal No. 2004-0644
Application No. 09/222,209
Appellants argue that the examiner’s motivation for the combination is faulty for
two reasons which are based upon a “need” in the art. (See brief at page 6.) However,
the examiner has restated his rationale for the combination and has removed “need” as
a basis for the combination. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that manipulation of text and graphic structures are in fact two
separate technologies. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with appellants as
discussed above.
Appellants argue that Capps provides absolutely no motivation for the editing,
interpretation and manipulation of the structure of freeform graphic elements. (See brief
at page 7.) We disagree with appellants as discussed above and find that appellants
are interpreting the term “structure” much too narrowly and that the combination of
Moran1 and Capps would have suggested the invention as recited in independent claim
1. Therefore we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 4-8, 11, 14
and 15 which appellants elected to group therewith. (See brief at page 3.)
While appellants have elected to group claims 5, 8, and 15 with independent
claim 1, appellants have included arguments to the combination of Moran1, Capps and
Zellweger. (See brief at page 3 and 8-10.) Therefore, we will address these arguments
for completeness. Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Zellweger with Moran1 and Capps and that the teachings of Zellweger are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007