Appeal No. 2004-0870 Page 8
Application No. 09/477,419
We are unpersuaded that the user interface of Williams comprises a mode that a
user can select and de-select. Although the examiner cites to Figure 1b of the
reference as "teach[ing] a user-selectable mode of operation," (Examiner's Answer at
10), the Figure shows that an element from the scoping window (viz., "| Segment 1")
can be selected for display of its contents. As best we can discern, Williams' user
interface always operates in this manner rather than being selectable. Therefore, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1; of claims 2-4 and 6-13, which depend from
claim 1; of claim 30; and of claims 31, 32 and 33-41, which depend from claim 30.
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Hasegawa
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Green and Williams. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 33, which respectively depend from claims 1 and
30.
B. CLAIMS 14, 17-22, 25-29
"[T]o assure separate review by the Board of individual claims within each group
of claims subject to a common ground of rejection, an appellant's brief to the Board
must contain a clear statement for each rejection: (a) asserting that the patentability of
claims within the group of claims subject to this rejection do not stand or fall together,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007