Appellant Krebs wins in "non-functional descriptive material" case
The Examiner asserts that this limitation is non-functional descriptive
material “because labeling the separate sections as a first or second section
does not provide any weight to the claims apart from the sections being
separate.” Ans. 17. This assertion does not coherently explain how the
proposed combination satisfies the claimed requirement that the preview be
presented in a section of the user interface separate from the section in which
the change is input.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish that the subject
matter of claims 1, 17, and 21 would have been obvious. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 17, and 21 and of their dependent claims 2,
3, 7-11, 16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Nunes and Elzinga.