Appeal No. 2000-0968 Page 15
Application No. 08/629,484
screen display format by altering the engine sweep. Therefore,
the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 18. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jonker, Moriyasu and
the admitted prior art cannot be sustained.
With respect to the remaining claims, we note that
independent claim 9 recites storing “display format parameters”
and “reconfiguring a frozen screen display format” by altering
the number of traces (as in claim 1) and by altering the engine
sweep (as in claim 18). For the same reasons discussed above,
with respect to claims 1 and 18, we also find that the invention
of claim 9 is unobvious over Jonker, Moriyasu and the admitted
prior art. Therefore, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2 through 6, 8, 10 through 17 and 19 through 21 over
Jonker, Moriyasu and the admitted prior art, which depend from
one of independent claims 1, 9 and 18. Because the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, we need
not reach the declaration submitted under 37 CFR § 1.132.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007