Appeal No. 1997-2149
Application No. 08/019,666
column 2, line 65). Fahs teaches (column 3, line 62-column 4,
line 7) that when the vehicle is stationary, power can be
provided from an external power source. However, when the
vehicle is moving, a DC/AC inverter is used to provide the
necessary wattage from the vehicle battery to the computer
processor and display screens. Since Reiser uses the same
type of display as Fahs and powers the display using the
vehicle battery (column 3, lines 51-52), it would have been
obvious to include a DC/AC inverter for providing the
necessary wattage from the vehicle battery, as suggested by
Fahs. Consequently, claims 1, 2, and 5 would have been
obvious over Reiser in view of Fahs.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. A new ground of rejection
of claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been added
pursuant to provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR §
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007