Appeal No. 2003-0717 Page 4
Application No. 09/549,118
The basis for this rejection (answer, p. 4) is that the limitations "said horizontal
deviation bar" and "the horizontal deviation data" lack antecedent basis. However, the
after-final amendment of claim 12 amended the two limitations to read "said lateral
deviation bar" and "the lateral deviation data."
Since the limitations the examiner found objectable in claim 12 are no longer
present in claim 12, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the rejection claims 1, 12, 20, 23 and 26, the independent claims on appeal,
the examiner (answer, pp. 4-9) after setting forth the pertinent teachings of Koenig
ascertained2 that Koenig did not teach either (1) indicator(s) comprising arrow(s) as
recited in claims 1 and 23; or (2) an indicator oriented in a vertical direction with respect
to the display as recited in claims 12, 20 and 26. Despite this failure of Koenig to teach
2 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007