Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 21
Application No. 08/289,134
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. He admits, "CAPPS and Shojima
fails to disclose operation means to cause two line segments
to intersect (claim 6), arrange on straight lines (claim 7),
arrange in parallel (claim 8) ...." (Examiner's Answer at 7.)
Faced with this failure, the examiner alleges, "Agulnick
however, disclose such operations being performed by a graphic
recognizing system wherein plurality of line segments are
being displayed and at least two of the line segments are
rearranged on a common straight line, rearranged on a [sic]
two common straight lines, parallel to each other (figure 42,
elements 895 and 900 and column 10, lines 1-31)." (Id.)
The reference, however, does not support the allegation.
The section of Agulnick on which the examiner relies teaches
moving a paragraph to another location. Col. 10, ll. 30-31.
There is no suggestion of rearranging lines in any way, let
alone to align end points on a common straight line or to be
parallel. 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 on
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007