Appeal No. 97-0802
Application 08/414,112
Appellant argues that Ellis "fails to teach or suggest
the placement of the programmable keyboard on the front
windshield of a car" (Br11). Appellant further argues that
the keyboard in Ellis has three non-transparent area for
selecting which liquid crystal member 7, 8, or 9 provides the
labeling for the transparent keyboard and that these non-
transparent areas "would be dangerous if placed on the front
windshield of a car" (Br11). Appellant still further argues
that there would have been no motivation to combine the
teachings of the applied prior art in the manner contemplated
by the Examiner (Br12-13).
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007