Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
provides a suggestion to one skilled in the art to store design
commands having parameters defined as variables that can be
assigned values when the program is executed.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not
been rebutted. The rejection of claims 1-15 is sustained.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is similar to claim 1 except that it adds the
following phrase at the end of the "generating" step: "wherein
said step of generating said replication command comprises matrix
mapping said set of design commands." The examiner states
(Examiner's Answer, pages 8-9):
[T]he multi-segmented interactive display screen of
HP-DESIGN can be viewed as a "matrix", with "mapping" to
various commands defined therein. . . . Every
user-interactive region on the HP-DESIGN screen can be
interpreted as one designating "design commands" and thus
"matrix mapping" can be given the reasonably broad
interpretation to include interactive screen interfacing as
in HP-DESIGN.
Appellant argues that the examiner is engaging in hindsight
(Brief, pages 18-19). We understand the examiner's position that
claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and
that limitations from the specification must not be read into the
claims. We further appreciate that "matrix mapping said set of
design commands" does not define what is meant by matrix mapping.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007