Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
103 as being unpatentable over Alexander in view of Shimada.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief, reply brief and the
answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 7 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that Appellant has indicated
on page 3 of the brief the claims stand or fall together. We
will consider claim 1 as the representative claim.
The central issue revolves around what is meant by
the claim language “graphic element data” and classifying this
data into groups according to their “attributes.” Appellant
insists that attributes of maps (Shimada) are not attributes
of graphic elements (reply brief-page 2). Appellant would
have us limit our understanding of “graphic element” to mean
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007