Appeal No. 2002-1798
Application 09/238,804
for displaying at least two numeric digits,
means for comparing said signal with a selected threshold
speed that is related to the legal speed limit for the
road by which the vehicle's speed is to be displayed, and
means responsive to said comparing means for energizing said
indicia in a subdued, steady state in the digits
corresponding to the vehicle's speed when the vehicle's
speed is below said threshold speed, and energizing said
indicia in a highly visible, warning state in the digits
corresponding to the vehicle's speed when the vehicle's
speed is above said threshold speed.
The examiner relies on the following references:
McClellan, Sr. et al. (McClellan) 3,691,525 September 12, 1972
Strickland 5,231,393 July 27, 1993
Haeri 5,659,290 August 19, 1997
Claims 26, 27, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Strickland and Haeri.
Claims 28-30 and 33-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Strickland and Haeri, further
in view of McClellan.
OPINION
Appellants argue that the obviousness rejection cannot stand
because the examiner did not address the objective evidence of
nonobviousness (Brief, pp. 28-31; Reply Brief, pp. 8-9).
Objective evidence (also called "secondary considerations")
is one of the four mandatory factual inquiries under Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966) and
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007