Appeal No. 2006-3033
Application No. 10/748,992
examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent
a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and the substrate (in this case the underlying structure of the data
store). See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035
(Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Group C, claims 13 and 14
We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 14 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Browning in view of Manchester.
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 13 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellant argues that neither Browning nor Manchester teaches or
suggests the following limitations of representative claim 13 [brief, page 8]:
V. automatically orientating rendered graphical objects based at least
in part upon a physical orientation of a user with respect to the
device; and
VI. changing object display parameters to provide at least one of an
optimized object display and an optimized viewing position.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007