Appeal No. 1998-0625
Application No. 08/570,605
6, filed February 27, 1997) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we
will reverse both the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 2
and also the obviousness rejection of claim 3.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 4) that "Hutchison does not
teach each of applicants' limitations, i.e., computer with
keyboard and a display board removably attached to the inside
of a vehicle window." (emphasis in original). Appellants
contend (Brief, page 4) that "control unit 11 is not a
computer with keyboard for inputting messages but merely a
repository for prearranged statements." As to the second
limitation, appellants (Brief, page 5) point to column 3,
lines 59-61, column 4, lines 1-5, and Figures 3-4, as evidence
that Hutchison is limited to a display device "either mounted
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007