Appeal 2007-3554
Application 09/887,602
Appellant’s argument concerning defining at least two sets of ranges
of cells is entitled to little, if any, weight since nothing in claim 1 on appeal
requires that the defining of one set has to occur at the same time as the
defining of the other set. In other words, Anderson can define one range of
cells of a set at one time, and another range of cells of another set at a later
time, and this action by Anderson would define “at least two of said ranges
having different addresses relative to cell A1 of the respective page” (Br. 7).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has established the obviousness of claim 1. The
obviousness of claims 2 to 12 has been established by the Examiner because
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims
apart from the arguments presented for claim 1.
ORDER
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 12 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
ce/clj
IBM CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT. IQOA/BLDG. 040-3
1701 NORTTH STREET
ENDICOTT, NY 13760
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013