Appeal 2007-1571
Application 10/198,335
way information is displayed to a user. (Allor, paragraph [0022]). As
disclosed by Allor (paragraph [0051]), the “style” document specifies the
layout of each display window. We also make the observation that, although
the Examiner has applied Allor to address the existing interface
reconfiguration feature of independent claims 1 and 34, we find, from our
earlier discussion of Prichard, that this feature is also present in the
disclosure of Prichard.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection,
based on the combination of Prichard and Allor, of independent claims 1 and
34, as well as dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 17, 21, 22, 35, and 36 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 26, 32, and 37 based on the combination of
Prichard and Allor, we also sustain this rejection as well as the rejection of
dependent claims 27-31, 33, and 38 not separately argued by Appellants.
We find no error in the Examiner’s finding (Answer 9-10) that the use of
replacement style sheets for reconfiguring existing interface layouts as
taught by Allor (e.g., paragraphs [0021] and [0051]) would serve as an
obvious enhancement to the graphical interface editing system disclosure of
Prichard.
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 5, 12, 19, 24, and 25 in which the Van Oostenbrugge
reference is applied to the combination of Prichard and Allor to address the
“skin” location identification features of these claims. Appellants have
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013