Appeal No. 2001-0605
Application No. 08/811,827
Further, contrary to Appellant’s contention, we find nothing in
Omoto which would indicate that the visual signal strength display
is anything other than “automatic” as claimed. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 9-11 based on
Omoto is sustained.
Lastly, we consider the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
3 and 8 based on Omoto, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of these claims. In addressing the language
of these claims which specify that the displayed visual indication
is a text message, the Examiner sets forth a line of reasoning
(final Office action, paper no. 4, pages 4 and 5) that asserts the
obviousness to the skilled artisan of providing a textual display.
Dependent claims 3 and 8, however, are respectively dependent on
independent claims 1 and 5 which set forth the feature of a
threshold dependent automatic display of a signal strength
indicator, a feature which, from our discussion supra, we found
lacking in Omoto.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of the appealed claims, we have sustained the rejection
of claims 9-11, but have not sustained the rejection of claims 1,
2, 5-7, and 12. We have also not sustained the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3 and 8. Therefore, the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007