Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
upon the stated combination in the statement of the rejection, the examiner has
provided a further analysis of the similarity between dots and points per inch at page 11
of the answer. In view of our discussion above, we find that the examiner has shown a
convincing line of reasoning for the combination of the teachings of references and the
use of dots per inch as a rate of scrolling of information on a display. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 16.
With respect to claim 20, appellants argue that Matsuzawa and Motosyuku do
not teach or suggest the “control device connected to separate said tilt detector and
said reference store” where the control device is a timepiece controller for a timepiece
worn on a person. (See brief at page 16.) We disagree with appellants. The examiner
maintains that Motosyuku teaches the use of a control device 101 (processing unit) is
separated from the tilt sensor in Figure 1. We agree with the examiner’s interpretation
of Figure 1 of Motosyuku. The tilt sensor is shown as a separate block and the
reference store is separately stored in the memory for storing the reference value
thereby meeting the “separated” limitation of the claim. The timepiece of Matsuzawa is
relied upon to show the use of a timepiece for an alternative function such as a remote
controller and an article of wearing apparel. (See answer at page 7.) Therefore, we
agree with the examiner that the teachings of Motosyuku may be properly combined
with the teachings of Matsuzawa.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007