Appeal 2007-1740
Application 09/726,776
at 10) that the objective of Alexander “is to display a main waveform and a
magnified waveform in two separate windows on the same display while
Engholm’s objective is to fill the display with one waveform.”
We do not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive since it is
apparent to us from the Examiner’s stated position (Answer 3, 4, 11, and 12)
that the Examiner is not suggesting the bodily incorporation of the single
display screen feature of Engholm into the device of Alexander. Rather, it is
Engholm’s teaching of the use of a virtual magnifying symbol (zoom
rectangle 12) movable by a user over a portion of a waveform to be
magnified that is relied on as a rationale for the proposed combination. “The
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
414, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965,
968, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973).
We also make the observation that, although the Examiner has relied
upon Engholm to supply a teaching of the use of a movable virtual
magnifying symbol, we find that Alexander in fact already uses such a
symbol, which takes the form of movable rectangular window 340, as
illustrated in Alexander’s Figure 9. This rectangular window is movable by
a user (Alexander, Figures 3B and 3C) to be positioned over a portion of an
original waveform to be magnified. Further, although Alexander displays
the magnified portion of the signal waveform in a separate display window
336, the claimed requirement that the magnified waveform portion be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013