Appeal No. 2002-0641
Application No. 09/407,069
displayed picture. Since it becomes necessary to extract and delete a drawing command in order for
a correction to occur, if the examiner is implying that Yoshida’s extraction operation is tantamount
to selection of a program, as claimed, then it would appear that Yoshida would be deleting the
drawing program itself. If the drawing program is deleted, then how can Yoshida’s system operate?
Accordingly, it would appear that Yoshida’s disclosure would foreclose the possibility that the
“drawing command” disclosed therein can be a graphic data program, as is recited in the instant
claims.
Since we find that the “drawing command” of Yoshida cannot be the claimed “graphic data
program,” and each of the instant claims requires at least such a program, or a plurality thereof, we
will not sustain the rejection of any of claims 19-22 and 33-43 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007