Appeal No. 1997-3224
Application No. 08/231,531
the second operation represented by the graphical object and
the first operation represented by the graphical object.
Furthermore, this is generated after the step of performing a
second operation corresponding to the second command.
Similarly, we find that the other independent claim 23 recites
similar language. We find that the Examiner has not made a
prima facie case showing that these references teach these
limitations.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
rejection of claims 10 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor
have we sustained the rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 22
through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007