Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
With respect to claim 21, the examiner adds the teachings of Russell as
discussed above to the combination of Motosyuku and Matsuzawa. Appellants argue
that Russell does not remedy the deficiency of the separate tilt sensor. (See brief at
page 17.) While we did not find the combination for independent claim 20 deficient, the
limitations of dependent claim 21 further detail an electromagnetic communication link
from the tilt sensor to the display. Here, the combination of Motosyuku, Matsuzawa and
Russell do not teach or suggest the separation as did Donahue and Russell as
discussed above. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 21.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3, 5, 8, 14, 16, 20,
24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 15, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007