Appeal 2007-0666
Application 09/738,992
1994) (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04
(Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
(a) identify handwritten annotations in digital images of
the hardcopy document captured at each workstation;
(b) communicate data representing the identified
annotation images to each workstation to permit an annotation
entered at a first workstation to the hardcopy document and an
annotation entered at a second workstation to the hardcopy
document to be distributed to the plurality of workstations;
(c) use the data representing the identified annotations for
display with the digital images of the hardcopy document at the
plurality of workstations according to display criteria for each
workstation; and
(d) display the digital images of the hardcopy document
at the workstations with one or more of the identified
annotations entered at the first and second workstations . . . .
Claims 11 and 12 include similar limitations. Considering all the
limitations, the independent claims require transmitting, to each of a
plurality of workstations, data representing handwritten annotations that
were made to a paper document via at least two of the workstations, and
displaying at least one of the handwritten annotations at each of the
workstations.
IV. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next
inquiry is whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte
Massingill, No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (B.P.A.I 2004). "In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013