Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 19
Application No. 08/289,134
each of the line segments at a preselected angle (figure 5,
step 630 and figure 12 (a)) ...." (Id.)
The reference, however, does not support the allegation.
Although Shojima shows a triangle comprising three segments,
i.e., three sides, fig. 9(a), there is no indication that the
sides are rearranged in any way, let alone at an equidistant
interval. The figures on which the examiner relies merely
show "a difference calculation step 630 ...." Col. 6, l. 36.
The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that Agulnick
cures this deficiency.
In view of this deficiency, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would have suggested the
limitations of "a plurality of line segments are displayed,
and said operation serves to designate an intersecting angle
between at least two line segments, said command rearranging
at least said two line segments at a predetermined angle for
representation." Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claims 3-5 as obvious over Capps in view of Shojima. Next, we
address claims 6-9.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007