Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 16
active incidents prioritized and summarized in the screen at the
top right. Selecting the incident on the graphic display (map)
with the mouse enables automatic pan and zoom to the correct
location as shown in figure 5 (pages 3 and 4). Viewing the
incident in figure 5 does not disclose the map to be
simultaneously displayed and adjacent to the enlarged graphical
image on the same monitor, but rather, the zoomed area is shown
instead of the map. From this disclosure of Smart, we find no
teaching of the enlarged graphical representation being adjacent
to a sub-image palette showing a display of an entire area. The
examiner has not addressed the question of obviousness of placing
the images adjacent to one another on the same monitor. In sum,
we find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the invention set forth in claim 102 and
claims 103 and 104 which depend therefrom. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 102-104 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 105 (Group IV).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 15) that claim 105 requires the
first icon, when activated on the graphical image, is changed to
pictorially represent the actual open or closed condition of the
output device, based on the change in status of the output
device. Appellant argues (id., and reply brief, page 4) that in
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007