Appeal No. 1997-1578
Application No. 08/212,292
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to each of the independent claims 12, 13,
and 18, the Examiner, as the basis for the obvious rejection,
proposes to modify the alphanumeric display disclosure of
Newell which describes a precessing or rolling display feature
in which displayed characters drop off the display as new
characters are added to the display. As recognized by the
Examiner, Newell provides no explicit disclosure of a
continuous scrolling feature as presently claimed by Appellant
in which the precessing display is recirculated by returning
to the first character after the last character is displayed
so that a message is continuously re-displayed. To address
this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Sebestyen which
discloses a pager having a precessing display. The Examiner’s
line of reasoning, which points to lines 8-10 of Sebestyen’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007