Appeal No. 2005-0433
Application No. 09/982,481
OPINION
Prior art -- Tabei
Appellants group claims 1 through 30 together, and submit arguments relating to
instant claim 1 in response to the § 102 rejection over Tabei. We select claim 1 as
representative, consistent with the rules in effect at the time of filing the Brief. See 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2004).
Appellants argue that the examiner errs in the finding of anticipation because
Tabei does not teach or suggest a plurality of adjacent data points in which each
adjacent data point is assigned a record. According to appellants, Tabei shows (e.g.,
Figure 11) a graph comprising a plurality of adjacent data points, but not every possible
data point in the graph is assigned a record; many “unassigned” data points exist
between the plotted records.
The examiner responds (Answer at 12-13) that the arguments are not
commensurate with the limitations of claim 1. The examiner finds, further, that Tabei’s
teachings are not limited to the embodiments depicted in the figures. For a large
number of records, the system is capable of drawing a graph such that each data point
corresponds to a record; i.e., with no “unassigned” data points.
With respect to anticipation, “the first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). Instant
claim 1 recites that the graphically displayable array comprises “a plurality of adjacent
data points, each said data point representing one record of said plurality of records,”
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007