Appeal 2007-0664
Application 09/794,420
OPINION
We affirm.
Appellant presents arguments as to independent claims 10 and 11
collectively and separately argues dependent claim 13. No other claim on
appeal has been argued.
Contrary to the Examiner’s view expressed in the Answer, we find
that the argued feature of “superposing the foreground screen and the
background screen on each other for display as a composite screen” is
reasonably taught or suggested to the artisan within Smith alone. Pertinent
figures of this reference for our consideration include figures 3 through 11
and 19 through 21. The Electronic Business Card (EBC) in Smith utilizes
icons to associate telephone numbers with individuals and locations as
shown initially in figure 6. The manner in which a new EBC is created is
shown in figure 7 with corresponding displays in the various parts of figure
8. Not only is various numeric information entered onto the display of a
blank EBC as element 820 in figure 8B, an icon select button 832 in figure
8C permits the selection of various icons 841 in figure 8D to be placed
thereon. At least in these respects then there is a composite image that is
form of what the artisan would well consider to be background and
foreground screen information to form a composite image such as that
represented the parts of figure 11.
Various types and categories of icons are shown in figure 9, to include
the ability to customize icons at the bottom of figure 9. The editing screen
1010 shown in Figure 10 in part permits an icon edit capability to include
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013