Appeal No. 2006-2367
Application No. 09/783,608
1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Taking independent claim 1 as exemplary, the examiner cites column 23,
lines 46-58, of Hu as teaching receiving data at a user device along with one or
more concept identifiers identifying a plurality of rendering instructions. It is the
examiner’s position that Hu’s graph attributes are the claimed “concept
identifiers.”
The examiner cites the same portion of Hu, in addition to column 26, line
34, through column 27, line 18, for the claimed retrieving the rendering
instructions based at least in part on one or more of the concept identifiers. The
examiner finds that Hu’s generation of program instructions for the object are the
claimed “rendering instructions” and that these instructions are retrieved based at
least in part on the graph attributes in Hu.
Finally, the examiner cites column 23, lines 56-68, and column 26, line 61 et
seq., of Hu for the claimed “rendering the data on the user device, using the
rendering instructions.” The examiner finds that the display of the graph on the
user device in Hu is the claimed “rendering the data…”
Appellants argue that Hu fails to anticipate the instant claimed invention
because the graph attributes of Hu may not be equated with the instant claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007