Appeal No. 2006-2648 Page 9
Application No. 09/788,387
subwindow may be shifted in the clockwise direction and redisplayed. FIG. 8 shows this
example." (Id. at ll. 35-40.) We find that those skilled in the art would have agreed with
the examiner that always displaying the latest image in the same position would have
allowed a "user [to] always recognize the last image captured at a glance. . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.)
Because the reference's displaying of images sequentially in a time series or
always displaying the latest image in the same position would have provided the
aforementioned advantages, we further find that Sato inserts image data in a desirable
position of a sequence of image data.
Furthermore, "it is inappropriate for appellants to discuss in their reply brief
matters not raised in . . . the principal brief[ ]. Reply briefs are to be used to reply to
matter raised in the brief of the appellee." Kaufman Company, Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 807
F.2d 970, 973 n., 1 USPQ2d 1202, 1204 n. (Fed. Cir. 1986). "Considering an argument
advanced for the first time in a reply brief . . . is not only unfair to an appellee . . . but
also entails the risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues
tendered." McBride v. Merrell Dow and Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211
(D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007