Appeal No. 97-3926
Application 08/481,091
suggestion anywhere in Siddiq that two different segments
are used to provide two different sets of instructions.
[Brief at 7.]
We agree with the examiner that the separation of segments 6
and 34 by cleaning and polishing segments 4 and 18 would have
been understood by the artisan as suggesting that segments 6
and 34 can be used to display different sets of instructions
(Answer at 7-8). More particularly, in view of Siddiq's
statement that "[t]he use of separated
diagnostic/instructional segments 6, 34 maybe [sic] useful to
provide the user with an almost instantaneous indication of
cleaning effectiveness using before and after views" (col. 4,
lines 49-52), it would have been obvious to use segment 6 to
show a test pattern and instruct the user that the cleaning
operation is about to begin and segment 34 to repeat the test
pattern and advise the user that the cleaning operation is
over. However, although the examiner noted (Answer at 7)
appellants' contention that the references fail to suggest
serially repeated instructions, he did explain why it would
have been obvious to serially repeat the first set of first
instructions and follow them with a different second set of
instructions, as recited in claim 35. The § 103 rejection
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007