Appeal No. 2005-2526
Application No. 09/754,553
if so, whether the artisan would have been led to modify Vale’s
teaching with such a teaching by Zellweger of moving a data entry
area on the interface to display the keyboard image.
With regard to appellants’ first argument that Zellweger
teaches only movement of text to allow text interlineations, we
agree with appellants. While “data,” as broadly construed, may
comprise textual data as in Zellweger, what is being moved in
Zellweger is text, or “data,” in order to make room for text
interlineations. Thus, “data” is being moved in Zellweger, but a
“data entry area” is not moved. The text, or data, being moved
makes room for new text, or new data, and that new data will be
entered in an area one may designate as a “data entry area,” but it
is not the “data entry area” that is being moved in order to make
room for the new data. Rather it is previously entered data that
is being moved.
Accordingly, we do not find that Zellweger provides for the
claim limitation of “moving a data entry area on said interface to
display said keyboard image.” Since the examiner admits that Vale
also does not teach this limitation, it is clear that neither of
the applied references provides for one of the instant claim
limitations. Accordingly, no prima facie case of obviousness has
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007