Appeal No. 1997-2656
Application No. 07/907,472
above. Appellants argue that the rejection relies on the obviousness of implementing
the invention after the combination of the APA and Yoshida. (See Request for
Rehearing at page 3.) We agree with the appellants, but do not find this persuasive in
light of the suggestion of Yoshida concerning the user understandable format of the
display. Appellants argue that the rejection fails to consider the nonobviousness of the
combination, which in not suggested by either reference. (See Request for Rehearing
at page 3.) We do not find this argument persuasive since appellants have not
identified why it would not have been obvious to have the display of both types of
information in a user understandable formats as is suggested by Yoshida.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not demonstrated any prior art
motivation for the combination of references. (See Request for Rehearing at page 4.)
We disagree with appellants, as discussed above. Appellants argue that a posteriori
ease of implementation is not equivalent to a priori obviousness of the implementation.
We agree with appellants' distinction, but do not find this argument persuasive.
In item (3) with respect to the separate patentability of claim 3, appellants argue
that "numerous references to the patentable differences between the dependent claims
and the parent claims" are present in the brief. Here, this amounts to merely
pointing out differences in what the claims cover and not why the claims are separately
patentable. We note that an argument that a claim is different from another claim in its
content is a requirement to avoid double patenting, but does not amount to an
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007