Appeal No. 1998-0929
Application 08/469,770
determined above that there is no deficiency in the basic
combination of references, we also sustain the rejection of
these claims.
With respect to the rejection of claims 37 and 47
using the additional teachings of Sach, appellant argues that
there is no teaching in Sach of generating a holographic image
of another physical control panel of a different electronic
device as claimed therein [brief, pages 45-47]. The examiner
responds that appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in
scope with the claimed invention [answer, page 17].
Claim 37 recites that “said image generator may
generate a holographic image of another physical control panel
of a different electronic device.” Claim 47 is similar. Sach
teaches the use of a single man/machine interface for
controlling a plurality of different subsystems. More
specifically, Sach teaches that touching different points on a
touch panel display can lead to different display panels which
permit the operator to control different subsystems. The
examiner’s position is that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to change the holographic display in Dainippon (which
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007