Ex parte WELLS et al. - Page 11




          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