Appeal 2007-1412
Application 09/822,152
ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily recognized that incorporating
DeStefano’s teaching into Lapierre's system would defeat the intended
purpose of such system. In other words, by highlighting an objectionable
term within a document, DeStefano’s teaching would bring to the viewer’s
attention the offensive terms in the caption that Lapierre intended to block.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner improperly combined Lapierre
with DeStefano. It follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3,
4, 9 through 12, and 16 through 19 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Lapierre, Goddard and DeStefano. We find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2, 5 through 8, 13, and 20
since neither Cragun nor Aras cures the deficiencies of the Lapierre,
Goddard, and DeStefano combination.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has shown that the Examiner failed
to establish that claims 1 through 20 are unpatentable over the combination
of Lapierre, Goddard, DeStefano, Cragun and/or Aras under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013