Appeal No. 2000-0265
Application No. 08/927,903
9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reed in view of Oshikawa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 24, mailed Mar. 15, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 23, filed Feb. 1, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 25, filed May 17, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that independent claim 1 requires that the reproduction means
are arranged to visually reproduce the symbols of the set of at least three visual
symbols as respective different pictograms in predesignated positions such that each
different pictogram has its own exclusive predesignated position and the pictograms are
situated relative to one another so as to form a two-dimensional scene. (See brief at
page 7 and reply brief at page 2.)
Appellants argue that the various figures shown on the screen do not form a
scene and that a plurality of pictograms are not produced in response to a message.
We disagree with appellants. The figures of Reed would in our view constitute a scene
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007