Appeal 2007-1740
Application 09/726,776
30, we note that, while we found Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive
with the respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-21,
and 31, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the rejection of
claims 3 and 22-30. Rejected claims 3 and 22-30 require either that the
magnified portion of the signal waveform be displayed “within the signal
waveform” (claim 3) or that the signal waveform is “magnified within the
original waveform” (independent claim 22).
We agree with Appellant that, even if Alexander and Engholm were
combined as proposed by the Examiner, the ensuing combination would not
satisfy the claimed requirements. As asserted by Appellant (Br. 11, 12, 14),
Alexander discloses the display of a magnified portion of a signal waveform
in a separate display window while Engholm discloses the display (Figure 2)
of a magnified waveform portion in which the original displayed waveform
is pushed off the screen. We recognize that, in support of the stated position
of obviousness, the Examiner, in the “Response to Argument” portion of
the Answer at pages 12 and 14, makes reference to the “zoom-out”
embodiment disclosed by Engholm at column 2, lines 21-29. While the
Examiner is correct that in Engholm’s “zoom-out” embodiment, the entire
original waveform is shrunk and displayed within the zoom rectangle, there
would then be no portion of the original waveform which would be
magnified so as to satisfy the requirements of the rejected claims.
Accordingly, since we are of the opinion that the proposed
combination of Alexander and Engholm does not support the obviousness
rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3, nor of
independent claim 22 and its dependent claims 23-30.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013