Appeal 2007-0493
Application 10/289,967
Patent 6,144,380
27. Appellants’ arguments (see below) addressed at least the
following limitations of Appellants’ amended claim 19:
(1) displaying handwriting written on the current page of the book
after a mark-up button has been selected.
Limitation (1) was found in original claim 19.
28. In the First Amendment at page 3, last paragraph, Appellants
argued the following:
Applicants have recognized that users often desire to
display “clean” page unobscured by handwritten notes.
Thus, claim 20 recites a feature whereby the handwritten
notes on a given page can be hidden simply by selecting
the mark-up button. Further, fresh handwriting will not
be displayed unless the mark-up button is first selected as
indicated as the third step of claim 19. Nowhere in
Norwood is such control described or suggested.
At page 4, second paragraph, Appellants also argued the following:
Further, the patent to Friend et al. fails to show or suggest
that display of handwriting is contingent upon selection
of a mark-up button. The Friend et al. system continues
to display handwriting from the very time it is entered,
regardless of any selection of a mark-up button.
The arguments directly above addressed Finding of Fact 27 limitation (1)
found in Appellants’ amended and original claim 19.
29. On October 24, 1996, the Examiner entered a Final Office
Action (“Final Action”).
30. Claims 19-23 were again rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Norwood, Friend, and Dickinson.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013