Appeal No. 96-1339
Application 08/089,433
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are argued to stand or fall together (Br3).
Claim 1 is considered as the representative claim.
Appellants argue that Norden-Paul teaches no more than
the admitted prior art list shown in appellants' figure 1 and
that Saito teaches no more than the admitted prior art
graphical representation of time-series data shown in
appellants' figure 2 (Br6). We agree with these findings.
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion in either
Norden-Paul or Saito to display a time-series list of
numerical-value data and a time-series graph of such data
simultaneously on a display screen. We agree.
The examiner sets out several reasons why the
simultaneous display limitation is either taught (because of
the way it is claimed) or would have been obvious over
Norden-Paul and Saito, none of which reasons we find
persuasive.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007