Appeal No. 2000-0265
Application No. 08/927,903
reproduction means of the claimed invention are disclosed and claimed as being fixed
in/on the display. Clearly, Reed does not teach the fixed positioning of the pictograms.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent
claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to obviousness, the examiner maintains that the "Reed device can
locate the symbols anywhere desired" on the display and thus the symbol locations
would be easily predetermined and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to locate the symbol in any location desired by
the artisan. The examiner cites to page 4 of Reed to support the obviousness
determination. From our review of Reed, we find no support in the portion cited by the
examiner or elsewhere in Reed to support the examiner 's conclusion of obviousness
with respect to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 7, and 8.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 9, we agree with the examiner that
Oshikawa concerns the curved display, but do not find that Oshikawa cures the
deficiency in Reed noted above. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007