Appeal No. 2000-0377
Application 08/777,841
in claim 1, paragraph (b)(iii). In summary, while Hotka
discloses displaying image data for a collection of electronic
circuits located at a site, we find it does not disclose or
suggest any of the limitations of claim 1, paragraphs (a) or (b).
The Examiner vaguely relies on Yamada's teaching of the
transmission of appearance data. However, Yamada does not
disclose "controller means for . . . examining a group of the
electronic circuits and identifying the type of each electronic
circuit within the group," as recited in claim 1, paragraph
(b)(i), or "transmitting data indicating the types within the
group to a remote location," as recited in claim 1, paragraph
(b)(ii). Yamada transmits appearance data, which is
"image-data," but does not do so in response to a request for
image data corresponding to a specific type as recited in
claim 1, paragraph (b)(iii). The "TYPE" information in Yamada is
merely data indicating a type of figures of the button, such as a
circle or square (col. 12, lines 1-2), and does not indicate the
type of electronic equipment. Accordingly, the combination of
Yamada and Hotka, even if properly combined, does not teach all
of the limitations of claim 1. Thus, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
independent claim 1. Independent claim 4 contains similar
limitations to those discussed with respect to claim 1 and,
therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has likewise not
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007