Appeal No. 95-4386
Application 08/127,139
association means for controlling said indicator means to display the past selected point of said
track of the ship in one portion of the display face and to display underwater conditions and underlying
transient objects corresponding to the past selected point in another portion thereof, thereby enabling a
display of both past encountered underwater conditions and underlying transient objects and the
selected past point along said track of the ship.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Nagao 4,400,780 Aug. 23, 1983
Rogoff et al. (Rogoff) 4,590,569 May 20, 1986
Suzuki Fish Finder ES-3314 (Suzuki) undated3
(Japanese)4
Claims 4, 7, 8, and 11 to 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Suzuki in view of Nagao and appellants’ admitted prior art at
page 2 of the specification.5
Claims 5, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Suzuki in view of Nagao, appellants’ admitted prior art at page 2 of the
3We note that the Suzuki reference is undated, and that our review of the prosecution history reveals no
objection by appellants as to the examiner’s reliance upon Suzuki in rejecting the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
103. At the Oral Hearing held June 7, 1999, appellants’ representative admitted that the date of the Suzuki reference
antedated the application foreign priority date of June 1, 1987.
4We have been provided a translation, on which we rely, of this reference from the Translations Branch of
the PTO Scientific Library. A copy was provided to appellants’ representative at the Oral Hearing held June 7, 1999,
in addition to being provided as an attachment to this opinion.
5We note that appellants’ statement of this issue, issue number one, incorrectly omits appellants’ admitted
prior art from the statement of the rejection (see Brief, page 12). The examiner (Answer, page 2) also incorrectly
affirmed this statement of issue number one. We note, as appellants’ representative brought out at the Oral Hearing
held June 7, 1999, that issue number one correctly includes reliance upon appellants’ admitted prior art.
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007