Appeal No. 1997-2895
Application 08/280,341
presented for different and other teachings. Thus, for
example, Piovoso stands for the concept of reducing size of a
display by “decimating between original pixels in the
neighborhood of the desired pixel position” [answer, page 7],
and Abrahamson stands for “displaying the current status
information of the other workstations ...” [id. at 10].
Since the deficiencies of Stefik are not cured, the Examiner
has failed to set forth a prima facie case with respect to any
of the three rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 6, 10 to 13,
27, 28 and 30 over Stefik alone, of claims 2 to 5, 14, 17, 18,
21, 22 and 25 over Stefik and Piovoso, and of claims 8 to 9
over Stefik and Abrahamson.
In conclusion, we reverse the Examiner’s final rejection
of claims 1, 7, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 29 35 U.S.C. § 102
over Stefik. Furthermore, we reverse the decision of the
Examiner
rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103 claims 6, 10 to 13, 27, 28 and
30 over Stefik, claims 2 to 5, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 25 over
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007