Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
the distinction between "advertising" and "product" data/objects. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive as discussed above, and we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 2.
With respect to independent claim 23, appellants argue that the kiosk of Jacobs
is not a standalone electronic poster and that the display of Jacobs is not poster-sized
and thin like a poster. (See brief at pages 10-11.) We find no support in the language
of claim 23 to support this argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that Jacobs contains many other elements outside the display and
Jacobs does not teach or suggest that all the components are bundled into an
electronic poster. (See brief at page 11.) We find no support in the language of claim
23 to support this argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Additionally,
we take note that APPLE COMPUTER, MACINTOSH, etc. has been a unitary housing
with the display since the mid-1980's. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. We
find no limitation in the language of claim 23 beyond the intended field of use of an
"electronic poster" to limit the physical size or configuration of the system. We do not
find this disconnected intended field of use limitation sufficient to support appellants'
specific arguments. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that
the shape of a poster may be hung in a bus or subway car, or on the side of a building
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007