Appeal No. 95-5061 Application 07/825,979 user's display screen, wherein said inspection data comprises user-selected program operating parameters from user-selected nodes and; (e) selecting a next transaction representing another of the parallel execution threads for animation and animating the next transaction until it blocks. The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows: Luke 5,168,554 Dec. 1, 1992 Georg Raeder, “A Survey of Current Graphical Programming Techniques”, Computer (published 1985 by IEEE Press). Claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Luke and Raeder. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2 the details thereof. OPINION After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Luke and Raeder. 2Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 17, 1995. We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on July 24, 1995. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter, mailed August 28, 1995 that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007