Ex Parte Haley - Page 5

                 Appeal 2006-2033                                                                                    
                 Application 10/116,774                                                                              
                 evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.  See                          
                 Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1040, 228 USPQ 685, 687 (Fed. Cir.                                
                 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.                            
                 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147                               
                 (CCPA 1976).                                                                                        
                        With respect to appealed independent claims 1, 10, 15, and 19,                               
                 Appellant’s arguments in response to the obviousness rejection assert a                             
                 failure by the Examiner to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since                        
                 all of the claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior                     
                 art references.  After reviewing the applied Moore, Armga, and Burkett                              
                 references in light of the arguments of record, we are in general agreement                         
                 with Appellant’s position as stated in the Briefs.                                                  
                        In particular, we agree with Appellant (Brief, pages 13-16, 24-26,                           
                 29-31, 32-34; Reply brief, pages 10-14) that, in contrast to the claimed                            
                 invention, neither Moore nor Armga, individually or collectively, disclose                          
                 the specifying of the relative location of individual interface display                             
                 elements exclusive of fixed position location information as claimed.  Our                          
                 review of the disclosure of Moore reveals that, while one of the command                            
                 structure options, i.e., “WIDTH=nn%,” is arguably a relative location                               
                 specification, it is quite clear that other command structure options such as                       
                 “WIDTH=nn” and “HEIGHT=nn” are fixed position options (Moore,                                       
                 column 4, lines 5-60).  In other words, Moore does not provide for                                  
                 specifying relative location of display elements exclusive of fixed position                        
                 information as claimed.                                                                             




                                                         5                                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013