Appeal No. 2003-0724
Application 08/858,809
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 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.
We agree with appellants that Yoshida appears to extract and delete data.
Yoshida does not disclose any “program” as recited in the instant claims and does not
allow for the activation of interactive drawing programs, as brought out in the instant
claims. For example, claim 23 calls for, inter alia, “each of said drawing programs
having a function of interactively acquiring a parameter value for drawing a graphic form
by causing the computer to present an item name to the user and to receive an input by
the user, and a function of creating graphic data corresponding to the acquired
parameter value” and claim 49 calls for, inter alia, “selecting a program” and a menu
“including one or more program identifiers” each “identifying a program for processing
an object independent of the designated graphic form...”
We find nothing in Yoshida suggesting these claim limitations and nothing in
either Seki or Suzuki that provides for these deficiencies.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007