Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
We agree with appellant’s argument. The shape in Marshall
is not a “cell bar” where the “relative size” is proportional
to a parameter, and “analogousness” is not the test for
anticipation. Although Marshall discloses (column 6, lines 27
through 29) that the height of a shaped metaphor may vary above
or below the plane of the virtual reality display, which may be
suggestive of a display device having a size which varies with a
parameter, the examiner does not rely on this teaching. We do
not see a picture of this in Marshall and, thus, we do not find
that the height of the shaped metaphor anticipates the claimed
cell bar. Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claims 1,
3, 7, 8, 14 through 16, 18, 19 and 24 through 28 is reversed.
The obviousness rejections of claims 5, 6, 9 through 13 and
20 through 23 is reversed because the teachings of Williams and
Lyons do not cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of
Marshall.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 14
through 16, 18, 19 and 24 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5, 6,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007