Appeal No. 97-1657 Page 4
Application No. 08/216,735
automatically altering a display of said graphic object
in response to an alteration of said value for said at least
one other variable, wherein said graphic object is efficiently
manipulated.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims follow:
Hogan et al. (Hogan) 5,414,809 May 9, 1995
(filed Apr. 30, 1993)
Gay et al. (Gay) 5,437,008 Jul. 25, 1995
(filed Jun. 23, 1992).
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hogan in view of Gay. Rather than repeat
the arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto, we refer
to the appeal brief and the examiner’s answer for the3
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner, and the evidence relied on by the
3The examiner’s answer incorporates the rejection set forth in the final Office
action of April 15, 1996 (Final Rejection).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007