Appeal No. 96-2044
Application 07/530,030
basis for combining references within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regard to the rejection of claims 11, 12 and 18 through 20, the examiner relies on Schlater
as the primary reference, contending that Schlater discloses the claimed subject matter but for the
displaying of a plurality of transient graphs sequentially when the current range is changed to the new
range. Once again, the examiner relies on Mahler to fill in the gaps of the primary reference.
For the reasons supra, we do not view Mahler as supplying the transient graphs required by the
instant claims. But, in any event, Schlater appears to be directed to controlling persistence of an image
of a graph rather than to the “jump-back” problem which appellants’ claimed invention seeks to solve.
Accordingly, it is not apparent to us why the skilled artisan would have chosen Schlater and Mahler, in
any combination, in order to solve the “jump-back” problem of the prior art addressed by the instant
claims.
The examiner has not presented any cogent rationale convincing us of the combinability of any
combination of APA, Schlater and/or Mahler in such a manner as to make obvious, within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. 103, the instant claimed subject matter.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, Jr. )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007