Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
such as that used in Thomas,11 reasonably meets this description. In short,
we find that Thomas alone amply would have suggested using a “virtual
brush” to select the area for applying the distortion component. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection based on the teachings of
Thomas alone because the Board may rely on fewer references than 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).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections with respect to claims 1-5, 10-13,
16-20, 25-28, and 31-37. However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 6, 14, 15, 21, 29, 30, 38, and 39. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
11 See Thomas 5, col. 2, ll. 5-6 (noting that the part of the object that is
“grabbed” is controlled by a mouse).
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013