Appeal No. 2006-3038
Application No. 09/750,288
Maxted also anticipates claims 1 and 14. The sixteen edit symbols drawn
in electronic ink that are shown in Fig. 8A are certainly classified functionally
based on their shape. In short, each symbol has a unique shape that is
associated with a corresponding unique function. In operation, when the user
activates the selection mode, the user selects the text of interest which is then
highlighted (i.e., an “object” of the displayed information is formed). An
accompanying selection window 24 opens, and the user then draws one of the
set of sixteen edit symbols within the selection window to execute the
corresponding editing function with respect to the selected text [Maxted, col. 7,
line 44 – col. 8, line 3; Figs. 5 and 8A]. In short, drawing an edit symbol in the
selection window associates the symbol and its associated function with the
object (selected text).
Although both Morishita and Maxted anticipate claims 1 and 14,
obviousness rejections nevertheless can be based on references that happen to
anticipate the claimed subject matter. In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031, 202
USPQ 175, 179 (CCPA 1979). Moreover, in affirming a multiple-reference
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board may rely on less than the total
number of references relied on by the examiner. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496,
131 USPQ 263, 266- 67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150
USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966). In short, the teachings of Morishita and
Maxted are merely cumulative to each other with respect to claims 1 and 14.
Nevertheless, we agree with the examiner that the teachings of Maxted would
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007