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