Appeal No. 1998-2606
Application 08/446,415
Turning next to the rejections of claims 1 through 12 and
14 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we sustain these
rejections only as to claims 1, 2, 8 through 11 and 16 through
20.
We sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 on appeal
generally for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer with the following embellishments.
When the teachings of both Long and Fales are considered
collectively within 35 U.S.C. § 103, we are persuaded of the
examiner's reasons for combinability as expressed at pages 5
and 6 of the answer because the reasoning presented by the
examiner there is consistent with the reasoning provided at
column 1 of Fales, which indicates that it would have been
highly desirable to the artisan to have utilized a single
light source rather than the plural light sources of Long to
have provided a simplified manner of displaying a plurality of
telltale conditions by means of a single dashboard unit.
However, the more persuasive approach to view the
rejection is to have modified Fales in light of the teachings
and showings in Long since the claimed driver, generally
planar image disc and light source of independent claim 1 on
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007