Appeal No. 1998-2825
Application No. 08/595,282
combination of prior art references. See Motorola, Inc. v.
Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472, 43 USPQ2d 1481,
1489 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The arguments advanced in the brief relative to the
obviousness rejection based on Crossing alone (pages 9-12) do
not convince us that the examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument (page 10)
that the present invention provides a much simpler method and
apparatus which allows it to be used in portable monitors.
First, there is nothing in the method of claim 1 limiting the
method to only portable monitors. Thus, appellant is arguing
a feature or limitation that does not appear in the claim.
Second, while claim 1 may appear simple, it contains the
transitional term "comprising,” which is inclusive or
open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements
or method steps.
Appellant also argues (pages 11 and 12) that the examiner
has misinterpreted Crossing as having only one mode. However,
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007