Appeal No. 2004-0953 Page 6
Application No. 09/215,593
providing storage for the version information. The examiner adds
(answer, page 5) that Aoyama does not disclose a visual
comparison of the various versions. To make up for this
deficiency of Aoyama, the examiner turns to Ogawa for a teaching
of comparing different versions on the same screen to ease the
editing process. The examiner adds (answer, page 6) that both
Plantz and Aoyama do not disclose a system in which the documents
being edited are portable document file formats. To overcome
this deficiency in Plantz and Aoyama, the examiner turns to Adobe
Acrobat 3.0 which allows users to edit a portable document file
(pdf).
We note at the outset that appellants do not dispute the
fact that the prior art references disclose all of the
limitations of the claims, rather, appellants assert (brief, page
7) that there is no suggestion to combine the teachings of the
prior art, and that the references teach away from combination.
It is argued (brief, page 11) that even if the invention could
somehow be pieced together from various elements of the five
cited references, it would have been necessary to utilize the
claimed invention as a roadmap in order to do so.
From our review of the entire record, we are in agreement
with appellants that the examiner has pieced together the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007