Appeal No. 96-1339
Application 08/089,433
display was a well known information representation technique.
The examiner also could have provided evidence to show that
time-series order numerical-value data could be displayed in
list form in one computer window and displayed in graph form
in another computer window on the same screen in a computer
windowing environment. However, instead of presenting
evidence, the examiner has based the rejection on mere
conclusions at the very point of argued novelty, which is not
persuasive. It is the examiner's duty to present a
prima facie case of obviousness. We review the examiner's
rejection based on the record created by the examiner.
Fourth, the examiner states that "in the disclosure,
Applicant admits that there is a nexus between the prior arts
[sic] in figures 1 and 2; or in other words, it would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to combine the
teachings of Norden-Paul et al. and Saito" (EA5). The fact
that the graph in figure 2 is a graph of the numerical data in
figure 1 says nothing, in itself, about displaying both
figures simultaneously on a single screen of a display. The
examiner's statement that the relationship between figures 1
and 2 somehow implies an admission as to the obviousness of
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007