Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for creating a graphical
program, the method comprising:
receiving user input selecting one or more nodes to
include in the graphical program from at least one first
palette, wherein the at least one first palette presents a
plurality of all available nodes for selection;
including the one or more selected nodes in the
graphical program: and
displaying one or more suggested nodes to include in
the graphical program in a second palette, based on the one
or more modes selected by the user input, wherein the second
palette is separate from the at least one first palette, and
wherein the one or more suggested nodes are selectable by the
user for inclusion in the graphical program.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Choy et al. (Choy) 5,506,952 Apr. 09, 1996
Sojoodi et al. (Sojoodi) 5,784,275 July 21, 1998
Thomsen et al. (Thomsen) 6,064,409 May 16, 2000
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 17-21, 24-26, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-50, 54 and 55 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Sojoodi. Claims 11-
16, 27-30, 36, 37 and 51-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Sojoodi in view of Choy. Claims 40 and 41 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Sojoodi
in view of Thomsen.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007