Appeal No. 2006-1776
Application No. 10/075,976
and Hinton and the movable window is that Jennel fails to discuss any structure
providing windowing [See Reply Brief at p. 4] and that the selection of borders in Hinton
only shows selecting size, not moving, Hinton’s borders relative to the displayed image
[See Reply Brief at p. 6].
As to whether Jennel displays a package wrapper image, we note that both
independent claims are more broad than argued by the appellant in that they only
require that at least a portion of a package wrapper is displayed and that the
representation includes the windowed image thereon. Therefore, any image of a
portion of the selected image that is imposed on the package wrapper would meet this
limitation, because the image is itself part of the package wrapper of which only a
portion must be displayed. None of the claims require that a portion of the wrapper
excluding the selected image must be displayed. Either of the images in Jennel or
Hinton would meet this requirement.
The limitation of a window movable relative to the image is not met by either
reference however. As the appellant argued, we similarly are unable to find any
reference to a movable window in Jennel and the examiner has not pointed to any.
Similarly, the borders in Hinton are not movable relative to the selected image.
Therefore, the examiner’s argument that the claim 1 limitation of
providing a window on said image to produce a windowed image, said
window being movable relative to the image, and said windowed image
comprising at least a portion of the image;
and the comparable limitation in claim 8 is not persuasive.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007