Appeal No. 97-2477
Application 08/212,908
However, in light of Watkins, it would have been obvious
to one with ordinary skill in the art that as an alternative
to Dunn’s embodiment, it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art to use solely behavioral icons to
describe a digital device. Thus, claim 1 does not distinguish
from the prior art combination of Dunn and Watkins on the
basis of the behavioral description feature of claim 1. The
same, however, cannot be said for claim 11 which additionally
requires an icon library having fewer than fifteen icons. The
cited portion of Watkins would not have reasonably suggested a
purely behavioral-model using fewer than fifteen icons.
Finally, the appellant argues that neither Dunn nor
Watkins suggests merging data path information with control
path information to create a structural description for a
digital device. It should be noted that “data path” and
“control path” are specially defined on page 5 of the
appellant’s specification and are not generic terms which read
on anything having to do with data in the case of data path
and with control in the case of control path. Claim 1
requires attributes of icons to include both data path and
control path information and claim 11 requires merging of data
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007