Appeal No. 2006-3033
Application No. 10/748,992
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Group B, claims 3, 4, 8-12 and 15
We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 8-12 and 15
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Manchester in view of Browning.
Since appellant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have treated
these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will consider
independent claim 15 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant argues that Browning fails to make up for the previously
argued deficiencies of Manchester [brief, page 7]. Appellant further argues
that Browning does not teach nor suggest an orientation component that
automatically orients display objects rendered by the display based on at
least in part a user perspective [brief, page 7, cont’d page 8]. Appellant
argues that Browning does not relate to altering the orientation of displayed
objects and therefore teaches away from the instant claimed invention
[brief, page 8].
The examiner disagrees, noting that Manchester is relied on as
teaching these limitations [answer, page 13].
We do not find persuasive appellant’s assertion that Browning teaches
away from the instant claimed invention. We note that the examiner relies
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007