Appeal 2007-0664
Application 09/794,420
the ability to erase and draw icons in the regions labled 1014. The
discussion of figure 6 beginning at the bottom of column 6 at least through
the discussion in the top third of column 8 is pertinent to the nature of the
manner in which these screens and composite screens are achieved in Smith.
The ability of the user to otherwise draw or write or compose a custom icon
permits the ability of overlaying information on the background of a blank
EBC. A composite screen, as claimed, does not require that both a
background and foreground screen cover one or the other or do so
completely. Although it may be interpreted that the word “superposing”
requires an overlay functionality, it is clear that this capability is taught and
shown in Smith. This ability is further amplified in the showings in figures
19 through 21 and their corresponding teachings at columns 11 and 12 of
Smith. The drag and drop capability illustrated and discussed here permits
an overlaying capability corresponding to the claimed superposing for while
the icon moves it overlays the background.
In these respects then we do not agree with Appellant’s view
expressed in the Brief and Reply Brief that even if Smith and Suso were
combined, the noted clause would not have been taught or suggested within
the art. It is thus apparent as well that the additional argument that it would
not have been obvious to have combined the teachings of Suso to Smith is
equally obviated since we consider Suso to be merely cummative to the
teachings already discussed earlier with respect to Smith alone.
As the Examiner has noted with respect to Suso, there are explicit
teachings of superposing what the artisan may well consider to be
foreground and background images to yield a composite screen image. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013