Ex parte ISENMAN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2001

08386033 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte COLIN C. ISENMAN
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-3409
Application No. 08/386,033
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, LALL, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 8 and 17 through 38.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for altering a graphical representation of a first object
displayed on a monitor that is obscured by a second object
displayed on the monitor to thereby create a vestigial
representation of the obscured portion of the first object
that can be displayed through the second object.
Appeal No. 1997-3409
Application No. 08/386,033
2
Appeal No. 1997-3409
Application No. 08/386,033
3
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method of displaying information in a computer
having a monitor attached thereto, comprising the steps
of:
(a) displaying a graphical representation of a first
object on the monitor of the computer;
(b) displaying a graphical representation of a
second object on the monitor of the computer overlaying and
obscuring at least a portion of the first object;
(c) altering the graphical representation of the
obscured portion of the first object to create a
vestigial representation thereof; and
(d) displaying the vestigial representation of the
obscured portion of the first object through the second
object.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Diefendorff 4,868,765 Sept. 19,
1989
Anonymous, “Method to Allow Users to Select Transparent Color
for Windows,” Research Disclosure, 206 (March 1993)
(hereinafter referred to as Gui).
Claims 1 through 8 and 17 through 38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Diefendorff in view
of Gui.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper nos. 10 and 12)
and the answer (paper no. 11) for the respective positions of
Appeal No. 1997-3409
Application No. 08/386,033
4
the appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 1997-3409
Application No. 08/386,033
5
OPINION
Appellant argues (brief, page 7) that “neither of the
references teach nor suggest that, when a second object is
displayed on the monitor overlaying and obscuring at least a
portion of a first object, the obscured portion of the first
object is altered to create a vestigial representation thereof
and that it is this vestigial representation of the obscured
portion of the first object that is displayed through the
second object.” Inasmuch as Diefendorff teaches that a
porthole window 16 should be placed in the top window (or
second object) 12 to observe the bottom window (or first
object) 14 (Figure 1), and Gui teaches that the top window
should be altered into a transparent window so that the window
lying underneath can be viewed, we agree with appellant’s
argument. In short, the obviousness rejection is reversed
because both references alter the obscuring window/object as
opposed to the obscured window/object.
Appeal No. 1997-3409
Application No. 08/386,033
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8
and 17 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1997-3409
Application No. 08/386,033
7
DOUGLAS S. FOOTE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION LAW DEPT.
AT&T GLOBAL INFORMATION SOLUTIONS CO.
101 W. SCHANTZ AVE. ECD-2
DAYTON, OH 45479