Appeal 2007-0610
Application 09/766,357
0027). Thus, 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 preference multiplier feature of McCormick to
advantageously assist in designing a document in a manner that is not
merely aesthetically attractive but demonstrably effective
(McCormick at Para. 0070).
Answer 6.
3. Appellant argues that “McCormick 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. 17-18.
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 3 are the same as that argued for
the patentability of claim 1. FF 3. Accordingly for the same reasons, we
affirm the rejection of claim 3.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 12, and 21 over the prior art.
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013