Appeal No. 95-5061
Application 07/825,979
screen by displaying a graph in which the transaction is located,
moving a symbol on the displayed graph representing the single
transaction along arcs connecting nodes to which the transaction
flows, and terminating animation of the selected execution thread
when the transaction is blocked by the occurrence of a pre-
defined event" as recited in Appellants' claim 1. On page 20,
Raeder discloses program visualization in which the system
displays graphics that represent code and data structures.
Raeder fails to teach or suggest animating a selected execution
thread by moving a symbol on along an arc connecting nodes to
which the transaction flows and terminating the animation when
the transaction is blocked by an event.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be established using
hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at
1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007