Appeal No. 96-1413
Application 08/134,798
edges of adjacent pairs of closed drawing objects would touch
each other. The bottom of page 1 of the reply brief states
that the “entire thrust of the invention is the connection of
the closed drawing objects along edges, i.e., lines.”
Following this line of argument of appellants, it appears
that in appellants’ prior art Fig. 19(b) “the areas” of the
drawing objects do in fact overlap each other but only the
edges abut each other in prior art Fig. 19(a). Therefore, to
the extent argued, appellants’ claims would appear to read
upon their own prior art Fig. 19(a). In the same sense, Fig.
19(a) appears to be consistent with the bulk of appellants’
characterizations of the manner in which the connectivity is
achieved in Fig. 4. In each of the graphical depictions there
in the example of the connection portion of Fig. 4 for each of
the active circuit elements or closed drawing objects
depicted, other than the one for the resistor, the connection
is achieved by abutting, or contiguous or tangential edges
touching each other. Only in the resistor depiction at the
top of Fig. 4 is the characterization shown for both an
abutment of the resistor portion with the micro strip line on
the left with an apparent overlapping of the “area” portion of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007