Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 12
keep separate lists of door switches when the icon for the
specific door is already on the graphic display (map). From all
of the above, we find that the examiner's proposed modification
of Smart in view of the teachings of Williams results in the
claimed subject matter, and that the examiner has not used
appellant's invention as a template, as advanced by appellant.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed. As claims 121-125 and 128 stand or fall with claim 98,
the rejection of claims 121-125 and 128 is affirmed.
Before we turn to Group II, claims 99 and 100, we note
appellant's statement (brief, page 9) that all of the other
claims contain all limitations contained in claim 98. We find
that notwithstanding appellant's statement, of the ten
independent claims before us on appeal, only independent claims
98 and 105 contain the language (paragraph (f)) of control means
for activating or deactivating an output device to control a
given security function of said output device "from said graphic
image." The other eight independent claims do not contain the
language "from said graphic image" and therefore do not contain
all of the limitations found in claim 98.
We turn next to claims 99 and 100 (Group II). The
examiner's position (answer, page 14) is that Smart teaches pan,
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007