Appeal No. 2001-0338
Application No. 08/932,953
Examiner has met the substantial evidence rule of providing an
objective finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have made the combination.
C. Rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schoolman, Tonosaki and Oyagi. Appellants
point out that claim 13 recites "power to the eyetracker is
removed when the user has not looked at the display." Appellants
argue that while Oyagi teaches turning off the sensor when the
display is not being used, Oyagi teaches away from removing the
power from an eyetracker.
Oyagi teaches a pager that has a display using liquid
crystals and a sensor to sense the external luminance so that the
display can be automatically illuminated when the external
luminance has decreased. See column 2, lines 12-17 of Oyagi.
Oyagi teaches a power saving operation of the display by not only
turning off the display when not being used but also turning off
the sensor that senses the external illuminates. See column 5,
lines 3-22.
The Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to those
skilled in the art to use Oyagi's teaching to modify Schoolman's
and Tonosaki's system to provide a controller to turn off the
1616
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007