Appeal No. 96-2044
Application 07/530,030
Additionally, the examiner relies on appellants’ admitted prior art [APA], at pages 1-3 of the
instant specification.
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
cites APA in view of Mahler with regard to claims 1 through 10 and 13 through 17 and the examiner
cites Schlater in view of Mahler with regard to claims 11, 12 and 18 through 20.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
It is our view that the examiner has failed to establish the requisite prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claims 1 through 10 and 13 through 17, the examiner relies primarily on APA.
The examiner states [answer - page 4] that APA “does not disclose moving the graph to the
predetermined position toward the one end of the display screen by sequentially displaying transient
graphs.” In other words, the examiner is simply saying that APA does not disclose appellants’
improvement over APA. In order to provide for the deficiency of APA, the examiner applies Mahler
for a teaching of displaying a trail of graphs and contends that it would have been obvious to combine
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007