Appeal 2007-1740
Application 09/726,776
With respect to claim 20, we agree with the Examiner (Answer 13)
that as the boundaries of the moving rectangle 340 in Alexander are
adjusted, i.e., moved, to include a larger waveform portion, the additional
waveform portions are magnified. To whatever extent Appellant may be
correct in the assertion (Br. 13) that enlarging the area of magnification in
Alexander requires redefining the magnifying window, i.e., the virtual
magnifying symbol, there is no claim language which precludes redefining
window boundaries to implement moving of the magnifying window.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 31 based on the combination of Alexander and Rosen. We find no
error in the Examiner’s finding (Answer 15) that the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have recognized that Rosen’s teaching of a magnifying
symbol placed over an area to be magnified and which has the magnified
area displayed inside the symbol would serve as an obvious enhancement to
the device of Alexander. We find Appellant’s arguments (Br. 16) in
response to be similar to those made with respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 based on the combination of Alexander and Engholm, and we
find them equally unpersuasive. We do not interpret the Examiner’s
position as suggesting the bodily incorporation of Rosen’s web page
magnifier into the device of Alexander. Rather, it is Rosen’s teaching of a
magnifying symbol in which an area of magnification is displayed inside the
symbol that is relied upon as a basis for the proposed combination with
Alexander.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection, based on the combination of Alexander and Engholm, of
dependent claim 3 and independent claim 22 (and its dependent claims 23-
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013