Appeal 2007-1740
Application 09/726,776
displayed “proximate to the first location in the signal waveform” does not
distinguish over such an arrangement.
In view of the above discussion and analysis of the disclosure of the
Alexander reference, we find that all of the claimed elements are in fact
present in the disclosure of Alexander. Further, we find that Engholm
supplements Alexander’s teachings to establish the Examiner’s prima facie
case for the claims being obvious over the combination of those references.
Therefore, it is our view that the Examiner did not err in concluding that the
combination of Alexander and Engholm renders the cited claims
unpatentable.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellant, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 4-10, 12-19, and 21 not
separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
separately argued dependent claims 11 and 20. We do agree with
Appellant’s interpretation of the disclosure of Engholm which concludes that
it is not the magnifying glass icons 18 or 20 which are positioned over a
signal waveform portion to be magnified as required by appealed claim 11.
We make reference to our earlier discussion, however, which concluded that
the virtual magnifying symbol in Engholm is in fact the zooming rectangle
12 (as with the moving rectangle 340 in Alexander). In our view, the
magnifying glass icon 18 in Engholm, positioned inside the zooming
rectangle 12, identifies and characterizes the virtual magnifying zooming
rectangle symbol as a “magnifying glass” symbol as claimed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013