Appeal No. 2003-1954
Application No. 09/296,020
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner applies Dutton against the independent claims as follows:
Column 2, lines 17-23, of Dutton is said to teach comparing a first object with a second
object to determine a difference between the first and second objects. Column 2, lines 23-27, re
a modifying unit, and column 2, lines 9-12, re displaying, are said to teach the claimed
selectively altering the first object, displaying an altered display of the first object that comprises
an indication of the difference between the first and second objects based on a selectable mode
of comparison between the first and second objects. (See Paper No. 5, page 3.)
We disagree.
Each of the independent claims requires, inter alia, the display of an altered display of the
first graphical software object wherein that display comprises an “indication of the difference”
between the first and second graphical software objects.
We do not find such a display disclosed or suggested by Dutton and the examiner’s
explanation has not convinced us otherwise. Dutton is pretty clear, in column 2, and other
portions of the disclosure, that a first image (stored at a first station) is compared with an original
image and that this comparison produces “image characteristic information.” This “image
characteristic information” is then transmitted to a second station. At the second station, a
second image (stored at the second station) is retrieved by an image modifying unit, and the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007