Ex Parte PARKER et al - Page 5



          Appeal No. 2000-0829                                                         
          Application 09/079,054                                                       
               The examiner’s rejection and the applicant’s arguments                  
               12. In the final rejection, the examiner relies on Taylor               
          to teach all of the recited features in independent claims 1, 14,            
          and 18, except for displaying a list of options that can affect a            
          selected lighting device upon selection of the lighting device as            
          follows:                                                                     
                    Taylor et al fail to clearly teach the determining                 
               information about a selected lighting device and displaying             
               a list of options that can affect a selected lighting device            
               upon selecting of the option.  However, implementation of               
               displaying multi-level list of options associated with a                
               selected object is well known.  It would have been obvious              
               to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the                    
               invention was made to implement the displaying list of                  
               options associated with a selected object to [the] Taylor               
               lighting system.  Motivation of the implementation is for               
               providing a menu contextually associated to the selected                
               lighting device.  In light of the rejection set forth above             
               the storing information about the devices would have been               
               obvious so that the contextual menu can be implemented.                 
               (Emphasis added) (Final rejection at 3).                                
               13. The applicant argues that the Taylor reference does not             
          teach or suggest a menu of options as claimed or storing data as             
          defined in the claims as follows:                                            
                    The final rejection states that “implementation of the             
               displaying multi list of options associated with a selected             
               object is well known”.  However, it is respectfully                     
               suggested that this statement is based on hindsight; not on             
               what Taylor teaches.  Taylor does not teach a menu of the               
               type defined according to the claimed invention, nor does he            
               teach storing the kind of data defined as being stored in               
               the memory according to the present claims.                             
                    The present claims define that the memory stores                   
               “information representing a plurality of lighting devices               
               and lighting effects that can be produced by said lighting              
                                          5                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007