Appeal No. 2004-1641
Application No. 09/764,388
We note that at the top of page 2 of the brief, appellants
discuss a 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection. However, on page 3 of the
brief, the listed issues do not include a 35 U.S.C. § 112
rejection. The final rejection included a 35 U.S.C. § 112
rejection that appears to have been overcome by the after final
amendment filed on August 11, 2003. The advisory action
indicates that the amendment has been entered. Hence, the
examiner’s answer correctly does not include, in the Grounds of
Rejection section, a 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection. Therefore, no 35
U.S.C. § 112 rejection is before us in this appeal.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Kiyohara 5,327,503 July 5, 1994
Garland et al. (Garland) 5,544,045 Aug. 6, 1996
Simpson, “Mastering WordPerfect 5.1 & 5.2 for Windows,” pp. 30-33
(1993).
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief and the
examiner’s answer. This review has led us to the following
determinations.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 24
as being unpatentable over Kiyohara in view of Garland
In this rejection, we consider claims 1 and 8.
We refer to the examiner’s rejection as set forth on pages
3-4 of the answer, and agree with the prima facie case presented
therein.
Beginning on page 4 of the brief, appellants essentially
argue that the reasons provided by the examiner to combine
Kiyohara in view of Garland do not appear to be taken from the
applied art. Appellants argue that Kiyohara does not disclose
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007