Appeal No. 2006-2367
Application No. 09/783,608
“concept identifiers” (principal brief-page 4). As a further explanation, appellants
indicate in the reply brief that the graph attributes of Hu merely specify properties
of a graph to be rendered such as a graph’s “width,” “height,” and so forth, but that
this does not inherently teach identification of various instructions to be invoked to
render graphs with different attributes. Appellants indicate (reply brief-pages 1-2)
that the same set of instructions can be used to render both a graph having width W
and length L and a graph having width 2W and length 2L, by simply looping
through the same instructions twice to generate twice the number of pixels. “Thus,
Hu’s graph attributes do not anticipate the required ‘concept identifiers’, which
‘identify’ rendering instructions to be ‘retrieved’ and ‘executed,’ as set forth in
claim 1 of the present application” (reply brief-page 2).
We agree with the examiner and will sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Clearly, since Hu pertains to graphical data transmitted from a server to a
client computer, the reference receives data at a user device. Also, since the
graphical data is parsed and an object representative of the graph is then
formulated for displaying the graph, there is also, clearly, a rendering of the data
on the user device.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007