Appeal No. 2004-0820
Application No. 09/317,312 Page 20
We turn next to the rejection of independent claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Glaser. We make
reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the teachings
of Glaser. Claim 7 recites that after detecting the termination
of scrolling, ascertaining the part of the document being
displayed, and transmitting to other computers a coordinate which
enables them to display said part of the document. As Glaser
displays, after scrolling and the subsequent pressing of the
mouse on the "Manufacture 40%" an arrowhead and connecting line,
Glaser does not display a part of the document, as the document
has already been displayed. We therefore find that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of
claim 7. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 3, 8-10, 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glaser in
view of Furst. Upon review of the record, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 3, 8-10, 17 and 18 because Furst does not
make up for the deficiencies of Glaser. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007