Appeal No. 2006-2367
Application No. 09/783,608
At the user device, the received data is parsed into graph attributes and graph
data. The graph attributes indicate a graph type, a graph dimension, etc. while the
graph data includes the data to be displayed. Since the graph attributes are
indicative of what type and/or size graph will be displayed, it is clear to us that
such graph attributes may be considered “concept identifiers,” as claimed. This is
so because the graph attributes are determinative of how the graph will be rendered
on the display. Therefore, these graph attributes are “concept identifiers” since
they identify a plurality of rendering instructions, i.e., the instructions by which the
graph will be displayed, as in will the graph be large or small, wide or narrow, etc.?
In order to actually display the particular graph in Hu, clearly the
instructions needed for the rendering must be retrieved and it will be based on the
graph attributes, or “concept identifiers,” in order for the display to know how to
display the particular graph.
Of course, the final display of the graph on the user device in Hu is the
“rendering the data on the user device, using the rendering instructions,” as
claimed.
Since appellants do not separately argue the specifics of any other claim
apart from the limitations of claim 1, we will sustain the rejections of claims 1, 5-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007