Appeal No. 2004-2271
Application No. 09/731,650
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 2, 7, and 12 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Block does not fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 2, 7, and 12. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Appellants argue at page
6 of the brief, “Block’s ‘back’ button, however, is not disclosed
as retrieving a data set previously stored.” We find this
argument persuasive. Claim 12 recites “an input recalling
function for recalling previously stored data in the user input
fields.” Block does not teach such a function.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 3, 8, and 13 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Block does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 3, 8, and 13. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 13, Appellants argue at page
8 of the brief, “[Block] does not state that selection of Block’s
Cancel button ‘clears all input data’, as the Examiner has
interpreted it, but only states that the user is returned to the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007