Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
for advantageously providing a useful tool for automatically arranging
and sizing document elements (Mohr at Col. 3, L. 45- 48).
Answer 5.
3. Appellant argues that “Mohr does not teach or suggest an optimization
model to customize the layout areas for customers, wherein the optimization
model that is used to customize the layout areas is at least one of a
transportation model, a network model, or a generalized network model.”
Appeal Br. 17.
C. Principles of Law
We incorporate herein the principles of law under the Principles of
Law section for the rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 17-19, 26, and 27 above.
D. Analysis
Appellant’s arguments as to claim 2 are the same as that argued for
the patentability of claim 1. FF 3. Accordingly for the same reasons we used
to affirm the rejection of claim 1, we affirm the rejection of claim 2.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 11, and 20 over the prior art.
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013