Appeal No. 1999-0081
Application No. 08/506,645
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obvious-
ness, the examiner relies upon SUPERPAINT alone as to claims 1
through 5 and 8 through 14. The examiner adds Engle as to
claims 15 and 17, and adds to this combination, Corballis as
to claim 16.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse all rejections of the claims on appeal.
Both independent claims 1 and 5 on appeal reflect that
the switch has first and second actuating states. This
feature is more positively recited in independent claim 1 and
more implicit in the switching action of the control means in
claim 5. In one state the switch enters two-dimensional
information and in a second state the switch enters one-
dimensional information. The focus of the arguments between
appellant and the examiner with respect to claim 1 relates to
the second state of the switch causing the picture processing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007