Appeal No. 95-5061
Application 07/825,979
user's display screen, wherein said inspection data
comprises user-selected program operating parameters
from user-selected nodes and;
(e) selecting a next transaction representing another
of the parallel execution threads for animation and
animating the next transaction until it blocks.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Luke 5,168,554 Dec. 1, 1992
Georg Raeder, “A Survey of Current Graphical Programming
Techniques”, Computer (published 1985 by IEEE Press).
Claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Luke and Raeder.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Luke and Raeder.
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 17, 1995. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants
filed a reply appeal brief on July 24, 1995. We will refer to
this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner stated
in the Examiner’s letter, mailed August 28, 1995 that the reply
brief has been entered and considered but no further response by
the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007