Appeal No. 2003-0789
Application 09/422,654
No. 28) entered October 31, 2003, in which we affirmed the
rejection of claims 40-48.
Appellants refer to the following statement at page 9 of our
decision in which we suggested how the examiner could meet a
presently unclaimed limitation of "controlling" the spacing
between shapes based on "border parameters":
The examiner could also apply an additional reference to
show that the size, shape, and spacing of graphical items on
a display are controlled by setting of parameters, which
appears to be something that assignee Microsoft could admit
to be known. [Emphasis added by appellants.]
It is argued that the underlined language improperly singles out
the assignee of the present application to be held to a higher
standard than any other applicant in this area (request, p. 1).
It is argued that the language "[i]t in essence requires an
admission from the assignee that anything related to 'size,
shape, and spacing of graphical items on a display are controlled
by the setting of parameters' is old and well known in the art"
(request, p. 2). It is further argued that the language
eliminates the ability of the assignee to traverse any reliance
on common knowledge or "well known" prior art as described in
MPEP § 2144.03 (request, p. 2). Appellant suggests that the
underlined language be eliminated or changed to read "in
accordance with the procedure set forth in MPEP 2141-2144."
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007