Appeal No. 96-2189
Application 07/969,731
On page 3 of the answer, the Examiner refers us back to
the first action rejection, mailed September 6, 1994, for the
grounds of the rejection. Turning to the above rejection, the
Examiner points out that the acknowledged prior art found on
page 1 of the Appellants' specification and Matsko fail to
teach a user indicator means associated on said user interface
panel with said visual protection curve representation and
having a first state in response to a trip signal generated by
the trip means and having a second state associated with said
visual protection curve representation in response to
adjusting of said adjustable predetermined function through
input means. However, the Examiner points to Yalla, in
particular Figure 1 and column 27, lines 5-10. There, the
Examiner argues that Yalla teaches an indicator means. The
Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to those
skilled in the art to modify the carriage of the acknowledged
prior art or Matsko in view of the Yalla teachings to provide
an indicator means with the first and second states as recited
in Appellants' claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007