Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
apparatus 1A which performs all these functions at one location." Therefore, Jacobs
clearly teaches a standalone system.
Appellants argue that Jacobs is not directed to, or suggestive of, conspicuous
displays on subways, or office buildings to an unconnected public. We find no support
in the language of claim 1 to support this argument. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive. If appellants intend to argue that Jacobs delivers a product in addition to
advertising, we find no support in the use of the terminology "standalone apparatus for
displaying advertising" to exclude other functions such as delivery of a product.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Jacobs does not disclose that the marketing information is
initially displayed conspicuously to call attention or whether the screens contain an
image. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with appellants as discussed above. (See
Jacobs at col. 18.) Furthermore, we note that appellants' arguments at page 7 imply
that the change of the display is in response to the users initial touch of the advertising
or screen. We find no limitation to support such an argument in claim 1. Appellants
argue that the examiner has not shown that Jacobs teaches "advertising having an
image displayed conspicuously is replaced by another advertising image." (See brief at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007