Monday, October 14, 2013

Appellant wins at PTAB on missing element case

The appellant won Ex parte YUJI ISHIMURA on a "missing element" case:

However, we agree with Appellant that Simister does not teach that
the calculation of each of the intermediate states is deferred until receipt of a
corresponding one of the requests to update the display from the timing
means (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3). As the Examiner finds with respect to the
claimed calculation means (Ans. 5), Simister mentions, “[i]n alternate
embodiments, a view can dictate that a later called layout or animator
override a previous layout or animator or be queued behind the previously
called layout or animator.” Simister ¶ [0073]. However, Simister does
teach the claimed deferral of calculations until receipt of a request to update
the display from the timing means.

Thus, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims
2, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 depend from one of claims 1 and 6-8. Thus,
for the same reasons and because the Examiner has not shown that Tojo
would remedy the deficiencies noted above regarding Simister, we also do
not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).


Post a Comment

<< Home