Appeal No. 96-2044
Application 07/530,030
the teachings of the references “because the trail allows the user to keep track of the graph movement.”
We agree with appellants that the examiner’s application of Mahler is misplaced. Mahler is
directed to a “special effects” system whereby television displays are given the appearance of
movement by causing a limited number of decaying stroboscopic images of successive positions of a
moving object to appear behind the image representing the latest position of the moving object.
Notwithstanding the lack of any evidence as to why the artisan would have looked to Mahler
for any suggestion for solving the “jump-back” problem of graph images in APA, Mahler fails to teach
or suggest that the decaying stroboscopic images of successive positions of a moving object are
displayed in response to the successive points of a graph reaching the end of the display during a
winding-up process to move the end of the graph to a preset reference position. Additionally, as
pointed out by appellants [reply brief - page 6], the transient graphs of the instant claimed invention are
displayed in a reverse direction during the winding-up process only when the forward movement of the
endpoint of the graph reaches the end of the graph display area while Mahler’s decaying images are
always displayed in the forward direction.
Further, the examiner’s reasoning for combining the teachings of APA and Mahler, i.e., to allow
the user to keep track of the graph movement, appears to be based on appellants’ own teachings rather
than any suggestion in the prior art. Hindsight, gleaned from appellants’ own disclosure, is not a valid
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007