Appeal No. 2004-2044
Application No. 09/476,708
selection can be found in the font change process of Microsoft
Word where the resulting font is shown as an example during the
selection process.
B) Reeder is Non-Analogous Prior Art
With respect to independent claim 59, Appellants argue at
pages 9-12 of the brief, "[t]he Reeder reference is clearly
completely unrelated to problems with respect to medical systems
or access to image protocols." We do not find Appellants'
argument persuasive. Appellants have improperly limited the
field of art to medical systems or access to image protocols. We
find that the invention is clearly directed to a combined medical
diagnostics and billing system. We find that the analogous art
properly includes both the Wood et al. and Reeder patents.
C) Motivation or Suggestion to combine
With respect to independent claim 59, Appellants argue at
pages 12-13 of the brief, "[t]he Examiner's statements . . .
[fail] to articulate a convincing line of reasoning as to why one
of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references." We
do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. As pointed out by
the Examiner at page 6 of the answer, Reeder teaches storing
accounting records for transactions such as downloading a file.
The system of Wood et al. clearly performs such transactions. We
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007