Ex Parte Turpin et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0002                                                        
          Application No. 09/935,531                                                  
          as a second axis orthogonal to the first axis.  More                        
          particularly, a shading is provided within the rectangles defined           
          by the time periods and data channels representation, which                 
          shading represents an indication of the “one’s density” for a               
          particular channel during a particular time period.                         
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.  An activity display for multiple data channels of a                
               communication link over a period of time comprising a                  
               quasi-three-dimensional graphics display having time periods           
               as a first axis, data channels as a second axis orthogonal             
               to the first axis, and a shade within each rectangle defined           
               by the time periods and data channels corresponding to a               
               one’s density for the data in the respective data channels             
               during the respective time periods.                                    
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Smith et al. (Smith)  4,870,348   Sep. 26, 1989                             
          Thong     5,241,302   Aug. 31, 1993                                         
               Claims 1-3, all of the appealed claims, stand finally                  
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                
          Smith in view of Thong.                                                     
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the              
          Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (filed April 22, 2004)             
          and Answer (mailed March 21, 2005) for the respective details.              
          OPINION                                                                     
          We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,                  
          the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support            

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007