Appeal 2006-3362
Application 09/838,365
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2
We affirm-in-part.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on whether
the references Scott and Blumberg teach the alternate images and the
reformatting of the document as claimed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants have invented a method, program and apparatus
(hereinafter “method”) for providing user-selectable sized images
in an electronic document. When a larger image size is desired in
a document, the invention allows the user to view a larger image
with increased resolution, so that a sharp picture quality is
maintained. (Specification 11: 21 ff). The invention is illustrated
in Figure 5 of the Specification. The selector of the image size is
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013