Appeal No. 95-2631
Application 07/950,402
another by each of independent claims 1, 8 and 10. The 4
examiner’s views to the contrary are based on a hindsight reading
of the references, in our view. This constitutes an additional
reason necessitating reversal of the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-5, 8 and 10.
Turning to claims 6, 7 and 9, as with claims 1-5, 8 and 10,
each of these claims also requires a display for displaying only
a portion of the system’s user settable operating parameters, and
the step of and/or means for selecting parameters for displaying
on a display screen by activating a menu portion of the input
means. We have carefully considered the Morrison reference
additionally relied upon by the examiner in rejecting these
claims but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiencies of Kinoshita and Yoshiura noted above. Accordingly,
we also cannot support the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
4Claim 1 calls for “said apparatus being constructed so
that . . . any parameter in said second category can be selected
for display on said display means by activation of said menu
navigation portion,” claim 8 calls for the step of “activating
the menu navigation portion to select for display only a portion
of less than the whole of the parameters in the first or second
category,” and claim 10 calls for the step of “selecting for
display on the display device a portion of less than the whole of
operational parameters . . . by actuating menu navigation keys
which cause the portion of operational parameters to be scrolled
through the display.”
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007