Appeal No. 2003-1954
Application No. 09/296,020
1. A method of determining graphical software object equality within a graphics
environment, comprising:
comparing a first graphical software object with a second graphical software object to
determine a difference between the first graphical software object and the second graphical
software object; and
displaying an altered display of the first graphical software object that comprises an
indication of the difference between the first graphical software object and the second graphical
software object.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Sieverding 5,495,539 Feb. 27, 1996
Dutton et al. (Dutton) 5,754,190 May 19, 1998
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as anticipated by Dutton.
Claims 6, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Dutton in view of Sieverding.
The rejections of claims 2, 9-11, 13, 15, 18-20, 22, 24, 27-29 and 31 have been
withdrawn by the examiner (answer-page 3) and are not before us on appeal.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007