Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
or bus stop. (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.
With respect to dependent claim 24, appellants incorporate the same argument
as made for claim 2. (See brief at page 11.) Similarly, we do not find this argument
persuasive for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 2.
With respect to independent claims 28, 29, 33, and 34, appellants present the
same argument that the kiosk of Jacobs is not a "standalone electronic poster" as
argued with respect to claim 23. (See brief at pages 12-13.) Again, we do not find this
argument persuasive. Additionally, appellants argue that the advertising includes "a
first image" which is not taught or suggested by Jacobs as argued with respect to claim
1. We disagree with appellants as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Jacobs
does disclose the use of images as advertising.
With respect to independent claim 38, the examiner maintains that the
advertising display may be mounted on/in a vehicle such as a cruise ship. (See answer
at page 5.) Appellants argue that Jacobs does not teach delivering advertising for the
reasons argued with respect to claim 1. (See brief at page 13.) Again, we do not find
this argument to be persuasive. Appellants argue that Jacobs does not suggest the
use of the kiosk in a vehicle, but is stationary. (See brief at page 13.) We agree with
appellants that there is no express teaching of the use of the kiosk of Jacobs in a
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007