Appeal No. 96-1339
Application 08/089,433
combining the teachings to provide the claimed subject matter
is erroneous.
Fifth, the examiner makes a distinction between
"numerical values" and "numerical-value data," stating that
"numerical value data is the data related to the numerical
values and not necessarily the numerical values itself" (EA5)
and (EA5-6):
Examiner regards the "numerical value data" in the claims
as the relationship between the graph itself and the
values in the coordinate system, (e.g., Saito, figure 2).
Therefore, Examiner maintains that Saito's graph in
figure 2 shows not only the time series order graph, but
also the time series order numerical value data.
This argument appears to be the same as the Second argument
addressed, supra, and we refer back to our discussion thereof.
It is clear that "numerical-value data" is data in the form of
a numerical value, not a point on a graph which indirectly
represents a numerical value. Again, to the extent the
examiner relies on a broad claim interpretation of claim 1
that reads on Saito, we find such interpretation unreasonable.
In summary, we conclude that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007