Appeal No. 1997-1131
Application No. 08/395,119
would be formed with the boxes juxtaposed and sharing a common
border element.
Although the Stano reference has been applied only against
independent claim 1, this is not to be taken as an indication of
the patentability of any of the other claims on appeal. In any
resumption of the prosecution of this application before the
Examiner, the Examiner should consider the applicability of
Stano, and any other discovered prior art, to all of the pending
claims. In making the determination of patentability, the
Examiner should take note of the fact that Figure 1 of Stano
illustrates a watch display with times displayed in a series of
juxtaposed rows.
As a final note, the Examiner, in making a further prior art
search, should consider the appropriate subclasses in Horology,
Class 368 (e.g. subclasses 223+), and Selective Visual Display
Systems, Class 345 (e.g. subclasses 33+), as well as Design Class
D10 (e.g. subclass 15).
In summary, we have reversed the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 18 as well as the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 19 and 20. We have entered a
new ground of rejection against claim 1 under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007