Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
On the other hand, we agree with the examiner’s assessment of
Shikata and the reasoning advanced at pages 4, 6 and 7 of the
answer as to why it would have been obvious for the artisan to
have utilized the teachings of Shikata in a combined structure
to arrive at the subject matter of representative claim 1 on
appeal.
Representative claim 1 recites in part that each closed
drawing object has two parts, an area representing the
electrical data and edges for overlapping respective edges of
other drawing objects. The language of representative claim 1
in dispute between the examiner and appellants is that
respective pairs of a plurality of the closed drawing objects
are connected “by overlapping the edges but not the areas of
the respective pairs.” For the most part appellants’
disclosure indicates that the overlapping of edges but not the
areas of respective pairs of closed drawing objects means
plainly what these words state. The disclosure also means and
appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply brief also
indicate that the overlapping of edges means no overlapping at
all, that is, that edges of pairs of closed drawing objects
abut each other, are contiguous or are tangential such that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007