Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
The rejection of claims 3, 12, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kent in view of Cornuejols and further in view of
McCormick.
Because Appellant argues claims 3, 12, and 21 as a group, pursuant to
the rules, the Board selects representative claim 3 to decide the appeal with
respect to this rejection, and claims 12 and 21 will stand or fall with claim 3.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 3 reads as follows:
3. The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein
the step of determining specific layout areas further comprises
determining a preference multiplier 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 3 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:
Kent does not explicitly teach that the step of determining specific
layout areas further includes determining a preference multiplier for
each layout area. McCormick provides a system that establishes
correlations between the design and content elements of a first
document and responses of recipients (McCormick at FIG. 4 and Para.
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013