Ex Parte Kropf et al - Page 5

                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