Appeal No. 1999-2290 Page 7
Application No. 08/763,955
additionally lacks means (claim 7) or interconnecting means
(claim 16) for urging the discs to rotate at the same angular
velocity and direction as the second hand. In addition,
appellant asserts (id., page 8) that even if "discs in lieu of
hands" is well known in the art, this would still not provide
the necessary motivation. Appellant argues (id., page 7) that
although the examiner states that two subclasses are dedicated
to patents showing the claimed features of the present
invention, that the examiner chooses to reject the claims over
Kamiyama. Appellant states (id., page 8) that "it is
submitted that the Examiner's reference to unidentified
phantom prior art falls far short of the requirement of
providing the requisite factual basis and establishing the
requisite motivation to support a conclusion of obviousness."
Appellant further asserts (id., pages 7 and 8) that the
examiner has failed to set forth an explanation of why or how
Kamiyama, or the general knowledge in the art, provides a
teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the watch of
Kamiyama to produce the timekeeper recited in claims 7 and 16.
The examiner responds by asserting (answer, page 4) that
the issue is whether it would have been obvious to add second
hands to the displays 4, 5, and 6 of Kamiyama, and then
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007