Appeal No. 2001-0605
Application No. 08/811,827
when and under what conditions a visual indicator is displayed. In
other words, Omoto has no teaching or suggestion of automatically
displaying a visual indicator that received signal strength is
below a threshold (appealed claim 1) or allowing normal viewing
when signal strength is above a threshold and automatically
displaying an indicator when signal strength is below a threshold
(appealed claim 5).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Omoto, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent
claims 1 and 5, nor of claims 2, 6, 7, and 12 dependent thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 9-11 we note that, while we found
Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive with respect to the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 12 discussed supra, we reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 9-11. These claims are
directed to the automatic display of a signal strength indicator as
an antenna alignment aid during initial set-up. We agree with the
Examiner (Answer, page 5) that Omoto provides a clear disclosure
(column, 1, lines 8-14; column 4, lines 45-47; column 7, lines
29-45) of displaying a signal strength indicator in the form of a
bar graph to aid antenna alignment during initial installation.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007