Appeal No. 95-2925
Application 08/162,820
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woodell in
view of Pomerantz.
Claims 11, 13-15 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Woodell, Pomerantz and Kawasaki.
Claims 12 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woodell,
Pomerantz, Kawasaki and Yashima.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety of
these rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 25) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 28) and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 27).
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention is as described at 3. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, pages 2-4
of their brief. The nature of the invention is readily apparent from claim 10, reproduced above.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Independent Claims 10 and 19
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellants, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained. Neither reference,
Woodell or Pomerantz, discloses selecting classified parameter signals being at the highest
warning level, and producing a sequence of individual display control signals at spaced time
intervals of those signals. Woodell does not select such signals. Woodell is concerned with
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007