Appeal No. 2004-0945
Application No. 09/605,929
Claims 4, 10 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Onda in view of Gillick.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed
October 22, 2003) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning, and to
the appeal brief (Paper No. 9, filed August 1, 2003) for
Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-3,
5-9, 11-13 and 15, Appellants argue that Onda does not disclose
or suggest continuing to scroll one of the frames while stopping
the scrolling of the other frames (brief, page 4). Appellants
further point to the portions of Onda relied on by the Examiner,
wherein the horizontal scrolls 300a, 300b and 300c are scrolled
synchronously (col. 15, lines 1-6), and assert that none of the
frames continues to scroll when the others reach their end (id.).
Appellants further argue that the vertical scrolls 500a, 500b and
500c of Onda (col. 15, lines 14-22) are controlled independently
and do not automatically stop the scrolling of one frame while
continuing to scroll the other frames (id.).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner attempts
to support the anticipation rejection by interpreting claim 1 as
including two separate commands, each for scrolling one of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007