Appeal No. 2003-0724
Application 08/858,809
The examiner applies Yoshida’s teachings to instant claim 49 at page 8 of the
answer and reference is made thereto for the examiner’s reliance on Yoshida. The
examiner alleges that although Yoshida does not teach the displaying of a menu
containing the extracted drawing program, Seki makes up for this deficiency because
Seki teaches a CAD system for drawing and editing a drawn graphic element. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine Seki’s teaching of
displaying the extracted program with the Yoshida system “for enabling the user to
enter parameter to change the scale of the designated graphic element, as set forth by
Yoshida with the ease of editing operation as explicitly suggested by Seki (col. 2, line
66-col. 3, line 4)” (answer-pages 9-10). Since this combination still failed to teach
displaying the menu of drawing commands near the designated graphic element, the
examiner employed Suzuki, as explained supra, to close this gap.
To the extent the examiner relies on Yoshida’s disclosure of a “drawing
command” as corresponding to the claimed “program,” we disagree. 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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007