Appeal 2006-3362
Application 09/838,365
We cannot extend the Blumberg teaching to claim 5, however. The
references simply do not teach the reflowing of the text around the image, as
specified by claim 5, when read in the context of the Specification.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 11, 12, 16, and 18
concerning the images being in the same document (Brief 16, 17) are very
similar to those with respect to claim 1. The arguments are not persuasive
for the reasons expressed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analyses above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5. The rejection of that claim is
reversed. The rejection of all the other claims, 1 to 4, and 6 to 18, is
affirmed.
OTHER ISSUES
Examiner is alerted to the wording in the Specification at the bottom
of page 15, and repeated in FF 2 above. An example of a computer readable
medium as specified in claims 15 and 16 is defined by the Specification to
include “transmission type media such as … wireless communication links
using … radio frequency transmissions.” (Specification 15: 25 – 31). Thus,
as defined in this application, a computer readable medium includes a mere
signal under transmission, not necessarily a physical tangible object. Such a
claim for computer instructions is not considered by this office to be
statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.3 As claims 15 and 16 have received
3 See, e.g., In re Nuijten, No. 2006-1371, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 20,
2007). Ex Parte Hartmann, No. 2006-1607, 2006 WL 2700810, at 4
(B.P.A.I. 2006) (non- precedential). 'Signals' are not statutory subject
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013