Appeal No. 95-5061 Application 07/825,979 screen by displaying a graph in which the transaction is located, moving a symbol on the displayed graph representing the single transaction along arcs connecting nodes to which the transaction flows, and terminating animation of the selected execution thread when the transaction is blocked by the occurrence of a pre- defined event" as recited in Appellants' claim 1. On page 20, Raeder discloses program visualization in which the system displays graphics that represent code and data structures. Raeder fails to teach or suggest animating a selected execution thread by moving a symbol on along an arc connecting nodes to which the transaction flows and terminating the animation when the transaction is blocked by an event. The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007