Appeal No. 96-3093
Application 08/046,880
the prior art. Second, the examiner must explain why the
identified differences would have been the result of an
obvious modification of the prior art.
In our view, here the Examiner has properly addressed his
first responsibility, but has not met his second
responsibility. That is, the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's suggested
combination does not meet the limitations of claim 23.
Specifically, the combination does not teach a second and a
third set of a plurality of selectable options overlying, but
not completely obscuring, the display showing the first set of
selectable options. Day does disclose a display showing a
first set of selectable options and a second screen overlying,
but not completely obscuring, the first display, and having a
second set of selectable options, see for example figure 3.
But Day does not teach a third screen similar to the second
screen, a claimed feature [Claim 23, lines 4 to 5]. Crandall,
too, does not teach this feature. The Examiner has directed
our attention to figures 5 and 18, and column 7, lines 30 to
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007