Appeal No. 2002-0641
Application No. 09/407,069
and operation mode (col. 2, lines 39-57), it is capable of re-creating a graphic form of the same kind
as the deleted graphic form” (Paper No. 28, pages 2-3).
It is the examiner’s position that while Yoshida fails to explicitly teach that the editing
operations include creating a graphic form of the same kind, it does suggest that the edit operations
may include a scale operation which includes deleting the graphic form and creating another graphic
form of different size. Accordingly, contends the examiner, it would have been obvious to
implement a scale operation to Yoshida’s edit operations.
We find the examiner has failed to present a case of prima facie obviousness because,
contrary to the examiner’s position, we find nothing in Yoshida corresponding to the instant claimed
graphic data “programs,” a plurality of different such programs being stored and each different
program for creating graphic data for a different respective data type only.
The examiner relies on Yoshida’s disclosure of a “drawing command” as corresponding to
the claimed “program.” However, while Yoshida describes a “drawing command” in the
background section of the patent as “consisting of a program instruction which relates to a specific
graphic form to be drawn,” there is no indication that the drawing command itself is a graphic data
program, or that a plurality of different such programs are employed, although a plurality of drawing
commands is stored, column 2, lines 34-35. Moreover, a reading of the Yoshida disclosure makes it
clear that a display controller has a function of facilitating extraction of a specific command for a
drawing part of a graphic form from among a command group for drawing graphic forms and that in
order for Yoshida to correct a graphic form, it is necessary to delete the graphic form to correct the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007