Appeal No. 1997-0413
Application No. 08/231,570
information on a respective display and a user can be more
easy to focus on the information [sic]” [supplemental answer-
page 11] is not persuasive. Wells doesn’t suggest a need for
any other type of display or information and the examiner’s
reasoning appears to be based more on hindsight than on
anything either Wells or Lowell suggests.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of any
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 since all rejections depend on the
combination of Wells and Lowell and the secondary references
to Villa-Real, Brennan, Tanielian and Igaki, relied on by the
examiner for various other reasons, do not overcome the
deficiencies of the Wells-Lowell combination.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 16 through
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor have we sustained the rejection
of claims 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, or
the provisional rejection of claims 16 through 33 under
obviousness-type double patenting.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007