Appeal No. 96-1339
Application 08/089,433
The examiner relies on the following prior art
references:
Norden-Paul et al. 5,247,611 September 21, 1993
(Norden-Paul) (filed April 22, 1991)
Saito 5,261,031 November 9, 1993
(filed April 9, 1990)
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Norden-Paul and Saito. The examiner's
position is that Norden-Paul teaches an "information display
system," "reproducing means," "selecting means," "time-series
order numerical-value data generating means," and "display
means" and that (Final Rejection, page 3):
It is noted that [Norden-]Paul does not explicitly
teach the graph generating means as claimed. However,
[Norden-]Paul's time-series data suggests any well known
type of representing these data can be used such as
representing in the graph form as claimed. Furthermore,
Saito teaches that the graph representation of
time-series data such as [Norden-]Paul's is [sic, was]
widely used in the art (Saito, figure 2). Thus, it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made, in view of the
teaching of Saito, to configure [Norden-]Paul's system as
claimed by representing [Norden-]Paul's time series data
in graph form.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 5) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 8)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 7)
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007