Appeal No. 2006-1766
Application No. 09/773,090
of an input sheet (see the abstract, for example), but no
embodiment describes allowing the user to select text that is
being displayed (principal brief-page 14).
Appellants argue that neither reference suggests any need or
benefit of having a second screen with which a user can interact,
and so the combination of these references falls short of making
the instant claimed subject matter obvious, within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In response, the examiner altered the rationale a bit by
citing the abstract, column 7, lines 19-45, column 9, lines 51-
63, and Figures 1, 5, 6, and 10 of Karidis; in particular,
recording unit 101 (as the second text editing unit) which
includes display 108, a markable surface 150 (second screen) and
an inking stylus 152 (second manual actuator), in which the user
154 can use the stylus 152 to write text on the markable surface
150 that is superimposed over the work surface 103 (Figure 10).
It is the examiner’s position that since claim 1 does not specify
any type of screen to be used, Figure 10, items 101, 152 and 946
of Karidis can be fairly interpreted as a form of “screen”
displaying editable “text” via a “manual actuator.”
The examiner also contends that Kashiwagi does show two
different screens that a user can move or transfer text from/to,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007