|
|
Court OpinionsState LawsUS CodeUS Constitution |
Ex parte TRAINOR et al. - Page 9Legal Research Home > Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte TRAINOR et al. - Page 9
Appeal No. 95-2631
Application 07/950,402
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new rejection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Jindrick, of record.5
At the outset, we observe that claim 10 is directed to a
method for displaying operational parameters “comprising one of”
the steps of “selecting for display . . . by actuating a
dedicated input key” and “selecting for display . . . by
actuating menu navigation keys. . . .” We interpret this claim
language as being of such scope to encompass within its metes and
bounds a method for displaying operational parameters by
performing one of the selecting steps set forth in the body of
the claims, regardless of whether said method also provides for
displaying parameters by performing the other of said selecting
steps.
In discussing prior art controllers of the type disclosed by
Jindrick, appellants’ Brief on page 4 contains the following
candid statement:
In the past, step voltage regulator controllers
have solved the problem of how to display a large
variety of information on a limited size display by
5This patent was cited by appellants in the information
disclosure statement filed October 1, 1993 (Paper No. 5) and was
mentioned on page 4 of appellants’ Brief.
-9-
|