Appeal No. 96-2995
Application 08/383,608
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner asserts that claim
1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kawana in view of
Bazille and Rakos. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention, to utilize specific sensory indicator means
as taught by Bazille, and switch means as suggested by Rakos,
in conjunction with a system as disclosed by Kawana "in order
that
passengers could have specific visual indications of an
upcoming stop, ... so that a driver could have operated the
signal device without using hands, thus providing greater
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007