Appeal No. 1997-3409
Application No. 08/386,033
OPINION
Appellant argues (brief, page 7) that “neither of the
references teach nor suggest that, when a second object is
displayed on the monitor overlaying and obscuring at least a
portion of a first object, the obscured portion of the first
object is altered to create a vestigial representation thereof
and that it is this vestigial representation of the obscured
portion of the first object that is displayed through the
second object.” Inasmuch as Diefendorff teaches that a
porthole window 16 should be placed in the top window (or
second object) 12 to observe the bottom window (or first
object) 14 (Figure 1), and Gui teaches that the top window
should be altered into a transparent window so that the window
lying underneath can be viewed, we agree with appellant’s
argument. In short, the obviousness rejection is reversed
because both references alter the obscuring window/object as
opposed to the obscured window/object.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007