Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
vehicle, but we do agree with the examiner that the kiosk of Jacobs would be desirable
on a moving vehicle, such as, a cruise ship where space is limited, but it would be
desirable to have these products available to the customers. Appellants argue that a
kiosk is especially inappropriate in a bus or subway car. We find no support in the
language of claim 38 to support this argument since only a generic vehicle is recited.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to independent claims 39, 40, 42, and 43, appellants rely on the
same arguments made with respect to claim 1 and 38 which we did not find persuasive.
(See brief at pages 13-14.) Again, these arguments are not persuasive. Therefore,
we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 38-40, 42,
and 43.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, appellants argue that since Cameron is directed
to a networked-based system, then in combination with Jacobs, the system would not
be a standalone apparatus. (See brief at page 14.) We disagree with appellants.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not provided a "proper technical motivation to
combine the references in the manner indicated." (See brief at page 15.) We disagree
with appellants. Jacobs discloses the use of scroll/next buttons at column 16 for the
user to navigate through the advertisements for products. Jacobs states that "[t]he
presentation module 400 also allows the customer to scroll forward or backward
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007