Appeal No. 2005-2268 Page 14
Application No. 09/976,683
promotional images that occupy White's entire display area. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 4-7, and 9, which fall therewith.1
B. CLAIMS 8, 10, 11, AND 13
The examiner correctly finds, "White et al. teaches of method of using an
electronic display both as an electronic billboard and as a display for an interactive
terminal, figure 4, column 8 Iines 3-27. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) He further
correctly finds, "[t]he device of Rantze switches between various mode of operation
based on . . . sensed motion. . . ." (Id. at 7.) The appellant argues, "[w]hile Rantz [sic]
contemplates some change in mode, there is no suggestion of a change in the display
in different areas of a screen." (Appeal Br. at 5.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 8 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a motion-proximity
detector generating a signal upon approach of a passerby to a predetermined
closeness, said computer responsive thereto to switch between said modes of display
to modify a display image normally exhibited by said electronic display." Giving the
1We have not overlooked the appellant's argument to the effect that White does
not expressly describe a display having a width of 42-inches. Relying on Ito's 42-inch
display, however, the examiner had a complete response.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007