Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
Appellants argue that the “tilt detector is separate from the display in claim 20.”
We do not find support in the language of claim 20 to support appellants’ argument.
The language of claim 20 states:
20. Apparatus for displaying information on a display, comprising:
a. a tilt detector;
b. a scroll mode selector;
c. a reference store configured to save a value of tilt detected by said
tilt detector when the scroll mode selector is activated; and
d. a control device connected to separate said tilt detector and said
reference store and configured to scroll said information on said display at
a rate which is a function of the difference between the output of the tilt
detector and the value of tilt stored in said reference store in which said
control device is a timepiece controller for a time piece worn on a person
and said information is menu information for selecting and activating
timepiece functions.
We find that the control device is “connected to separate said tilt detector and said
reference store.” As the examiner maintains, the processor 101 of Motosyuku separate
the tilt sensor and the reference store. Additionally, the timepiece of Matsuzawa is
worn on the person and may have the tilt sensor and display therein.
Appellants argue that the combination does not allow the user to scroll the
display on the watch by moving a separate tilt sensor while holding the watch still to
look at the display. (See brief at page 16.) We do not find support in the language of
claim 20 to support appellants’ argument. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive,
and we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007