Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 16
Application No. 08/289,134
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 12, and
13 as obvious over Capps in view of Shojima. Next, we address
claim 2.
Claim 2
The appellants argue, "the asserted combination of prior
art references fails to teach or suggest the features of claim
2." (Appeal Br. at 15.) Claim 2 specifies in pertinent part
the following limitations: "a plurality of line segments are
displayed on said display, and said operation serves to bridge
for bridging at least three line segments, said command
rearranges at least said three line segments at an equidistant
interval to be displayed." Accordingly, the limitations
require rearranging line segments at an equidistant interval.
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. He admits, "CAPPS is silent
about bridging or rearranging of the line segments ...."
(Examiner's Answer at 6.) Faced with this silence, the
examiner alleges, "Shojima however discloses a plurality of
line segments being displayed on the display and ... the
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007