Appeal No. 96-2242
Application No. 08/083,242
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection.
In the grounds of the rejection of claim 1 (Answer,
pages 2 and 3), the examiner broadly refers to the system
console 85 in Norden-Paul (Figure 1) for the step of
“displaying a representation of said object,” to the bedside
workstations in Norden-Paul (Figure 1) for the step of
“providing said object with attributes that are relevant to
the presentation of said object,” to column 5, line 12 to
column 6, line 4 of Norden-Paul for the step of “determining
of [sic, if] said object is to be presented,” and to Figures 4
through 7 of Norden-Paul for the step of “transforming said
object into a displayable format.” According to the examiner
(Answer, page 4), the patient monitoring equipment 8, 10, 28
and 30 of Norden-Paul are “equivalent to the claimed ‘user
interface,’” the patient forms are “equivalent to the claimed
‘object,’” and the network administration terminal 85 “can be
viewed as a ‘user interface’ which transfers the data to the
‘representation device’ as claimed.”
We agree with appellants’ argument (Brief, pages 5 and 6)
that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007