Appeal No. 96-0300
Application 08/090,285
Vela et al. (Vela) 4,882,724 Nov. 21,
1989
Malec et al. (Malec) 4,973,952 Nov. 27,
1990
Tannehill et al. (Tannehill) 5,158,310 Oct.
27, 1992
All claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As to 3
claims 5 to 7, 18 to 20 and 22 to 26, the examiner relies upon
Vela alone, with the addition of Tannehill as to claims 2 to 4
and 17. On the other hand, to reject claims 8, 9, 11 and 13
to 16, the examiner relies upon the combination of Tannehill
in view of Vela, with the addition of Hayasaka as to claim 10.
Finally, the examiner considers claim 21 obvious over Malec
alone.
3We note in passing that dependent claim 13 depends from
canceled claim 12. Some form of claim 12 appears to have been
incorporated into an early version of claim 8 by amendment.
Therefore, we construe claim 13 for purposes of our review as
apparently intended to have been dependent from present claim
8. Additionally, we note that the features recited in
dependent claims 9 through 11 relating to "the non-
informational cue means" does not appear in the present
version of independent claim 8. Therefore, there is no
antecedent basis for the noted language in dependent claims 9
through 11. Again, for purposes of our review, we consider
the noted feature in claims 9 to 11 as relating to the
presently claimed "unobtrusive cue means" of claim 8.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007