Appeal No. 2000-0829
Application 09/079,054
prima facie case of obviousness regarding claim 9. The
applicants provide no explanation as to why the cited portions in
Taylor fail to meet claim 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 9
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Taylor.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and further recites “wherein the
modification options include the selection and movement of said
temporary support structures.” In the examiner’s final rejection
the examiner directed the applicants to portions in Taylor that
support the finding that Taylor teaches moving the lights and
supporting structures (Taylor, e.g. col. 18, lines 60-62).
In the brief, the applicants argue that “claim 10 defines
that the virtual reality system is used to select and move the
temporary support structures. Such is not in any way taught or
suggested by Taylor.” (Brief at 8). Again, the applicants fail
to sufficiently explain why the examiners finding that Taylor
does teach moving the temporary support structures is erroneous.
Applicants should have explained why the cited portion in Taylor
does not meet the limitation set forth in claim 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 10
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Taylor.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007