Appeal No. 1997-1665 Page 22
Application No. 08/289,134
said display, and said operation serves to cause said at least
two line segments to intersect each other adjacent to a first
set of end points of said two line segments, said command
rearranging said first set of end points of at least two line
segments so as to align said first set of end points on a
common straight line" or "a plurality of line segments are
displayed on said display, and said operation serves to enter
parallel lines at a predetermined angle with respect to said
at least two line segments, said command rearranging said at
least two line segments in parallel to each other."
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 6-9 as obvious
over Capps in view of Shojima further in view of Agulnick.
Next, we address claim 10.
Claim 10
The appellants argue that the prior art references fail
to teach or suggest the features of claim 10. (Appeal Br. at
15-16.) Claim 10 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "said operation further serves to temporarily
stop execution thereof, the execution of said command being
temporarily stopped until a release operation is performed."
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007