Appeal No. 2006-3121
Application No. 10/165,083
“source information.” In any event, nothing in the claim language precludes
footnotes as constituting “source information” – even footnotes that are part of a
document’s content.
Turning to the prior art, we note that Word enables the user to copy a
footnote reference (i.e., an “object”) located in the main text of a first document in
a first application, and paste it in a second document displayed by a second
application. Responsive to pasting, the associated “source information” (i.e.,
footnote number and associated text) is retrieved, sent to the second application,
and automatically incorporated into the second document. As is well known in
the art, such functionality exists not only when copying and pasting footnotes
between independent documents within MS Word itself, but also between MS
Word and other applications (e.g., between MS Word and MS Powerpoint).
In view of the ability of Word to automatically copy and paste footnotes
and associated “source information” among multiple documents in diverse
applications, we conclude that Word at least suggests the limitations of the
independent claims. Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s obviousness
rejection on the teachings of Word alone. Although we consider Jones and
Burner to be merely cumulative to the teachings of Word, we may nevertheless
rely on less than the total number of references relied on by the examiner in
affirming a multiple-reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013