Appeal No. 96-2854
Application No. 08/119,980
Butler et al. (Butler) 4,837,811 Jun. 6,
1989
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Okurano in view of Okanda and
Butler.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of
this claim but we will reverse the rejection of claims 2 and 3
on appeal for the reasons set forth infra.
Appellant argues at page 14 of the Brief:
Appellant respectfully submits that the
modification proposed by the Examiner of the system
of Okurano is contrary to the very purpose of the
Okanda system, of providing the operator with
immediate display of maintenance information of all
of the exchanges.
Where one document, here the reference to
Okurano, states that its objective and configuration
is to provide with continuous information, the fact
that another reference [Okanda] describes providing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007