Appeal 2007-1571
Application 10/198,335
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)(quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claims
10, 16, and 20 based on the teachings of Prichard, the Examiner indicates
(Answer 3-4) how the various limitations are read on the disclosure of
Prichard. In particular, the Examiner directs attention to the illustrations in
Figures 3 and 8 of Prichard, as well as the disclosure at paragraphs [0019],
[0040], [0041], and [0047] of Prichard.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not
shown how each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of
Prichard so as to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellant’s
arguments (Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3) focus on the contention that, in contrast
to the language of claims 10, 16, and 20 which requires that a particular
interface “layout” be changed, Prichard only discloses that content of an
interface can be changed. In support of their position, Appellants direct
attention to the illustration in Prichard’s Figure 8 which, in their view, only
discloses input boxes enabling a user to change interface content information
such as the formatting of date and time information.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013