Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
respect to this rejection, and claims 11 and 20 will stand or fall with claim 2.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 2 reads as follows:
2. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein
the step of determining specific layout areas further comprises
determining the maximum and minimum possible sizes for each
layout area.
A. Issue
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
holding the cited prior art combination would have rendered the subject
matter of claim 2 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention.
B. Findings of Fact
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. We incorporate herein the facts under the Findings of Fact section for
the rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 17-19, 26, and 27 above and add the
following.
2. The Examiner found that:
As discussed in detail above, Kent teaches all limitations recited in
Appellant's Claim 1. However, Kent does not explicitly provide that
the step of determining specific layout areas includes determining the
maximum and minimum possible sizes for each product layout. Mohr
provides an automatic document layout system that maximizes or
minimizes shape elements, thereby teaching the element deficient
from Kent (Mohr at Abstract, Col. 3, L. 33-48, and Col. 18, L. 38-56).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time Appellant's invention was made to modify Kent to
include the maximum and minimum size determination step of Mohr
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013