|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 09:14 AM EDT |
To add to this, there is nothing to prevent other prior art
findings from invalidating the remaining three claims. Note
that the final 3 claims are:
14: visually distinct area beyond the document edge
17: moving past the document gets reduced distance
18: moving past the document gets reduced speed
So basically, there are a visual contrast and two methods of
dampening movement past the document.
As far as the visual contrast issue, it's hard to believe
that the USPTO denied claim 13 for prior art, but not 14.
Claim 13 lists black, grey, a solid color, or white for the
background but doesn't identify them as visually distinct
from the document itself, which is the entire claim of 14.
Is it truly possible that there is no prior art for making
backgrounds visually distinct from documents? I think not.
I also suspect that the dampened movement has to have prior
art somewhere.
While there are indeed a small fraction of patent
applications that have been approved after prior rejections,
there are many more patents that did not. Only time will
tell in this case.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
