Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
of groups to “enhance” Alexander’s display by using “readily
organized” groups as taught by Shimada.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to refine one graphic display system, Alexander, with
an improvement from another graphic display system. Moreover,
we believe Shimada’s “readily organized” groups already exist
in Alexander, and Shimada could be considered a cumulative
teaching. Alexander collects information related to a data
object and builds a physical attribute object (column 6, lines
49 and 56), this could be considered as “classifying” and
placing in groups. Also, Alexander creates tagged sets of
objects (column 8, lines 30-44), this could also be considered
as “classifying” and placing in groups.
Thus, we find that the Examiner’s combination of
Alexander and Shimada reads on the claim language of claim 1,
as well as the references being cumulative to each other.
Appellant also argues that his invention shortens
processing time (brief-bottom of pages 5 and 10), whereas the
applied references do not. This argument fails at the outset
because it is not based on limitations appearing in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007