Appeal 2006-2496
Application 09/944,696
Microsoft ® Word 2000 with “ls”. For the third stated rejection of claims
12, 17, 312, 40 and 43, the Examiner combines Boden, Nauckhoff and
Microsoft ® Word 2000 with Kumashiro. Finally, the Examiner combines
Boden, Nauckhoff and Microsoft ® Word 2000 with Garofalakis for the
fourth stated rejection of claim 29.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for the Appellants’ positions,
and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We affirm.
Of independent claims 3, 13, 28, 38, 41 and 44 included within the
first stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellants only present
arguments to these independent claims collectively, and present no separate
arguments to the remaining dependent claims encompassed by this rejection.
We will address independent claim 3 as representative of all independent
claims.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
2 Claim 31 was inadvertently omitted from the statement of the rejection in
the Answer, but was rejected in the body of the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013