Appeal 2007-1417
Application 09/877,536
text) to another text part in another format (plain text only) is shown
in Figures 10A through 10C. (Col. 14, ll. 29-56.) A procedure for
placing content from one part into another part is illustrated in
Figure 12. (Col. 15, l. 28 to col. 16, l. 18.)
5. Curbow teaches that when a user desires to create a new text
document, the user can open a "text stationery icon" (e.g., by double
clicking on it) and the stationery icon will "tear off" a copy of itself
which is opened in a new frame. (Col. 6, ll. 43-47.) This copy can be
blank or can contain pre-set information. (Col. 6, ll. 47-49.) The user
then enters additional content into the document. (Col. 6, ll. 50-51.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
All timely filed evidence and properly presented arguments are
considered by the Board in resolving an obviousness issue on appeal. See In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. Id. at 1472,
223 USPQ at 788. When that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to rebut. Id.; see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 74
USPQ2d 1951, 1954-55 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding rebuttal evidence
unpersuasive). If the applicant produces rebuttal evidence of adequate
weight, the prima facie case of unpatentability is dissipated. In re Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788. Thereafter, patentability is determined
in view of the entire record. Id. However, on appeal to the Board it is an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013