Ex Parte Ilic - Page 8

                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