Appeal No. 2001-0813 Page 7
Application No. 08/825,994
of Watanabe [answer, page 4]. The major element of claim 1 is the control device.
This element has not been specifically read on any element of Watanabe. Instead, the
examiner asserts that the claimed control device is inherently present in Watanabe and
connected to control part 9. The examiner also asserts that the claimed memory
controller and the claimed control interface are also inherent in Watanabe. The
examiner then takes “Official Notice” that this inherent control device could obviously be
a microprocessor-based controller as claimed. Finally, the examiner asserts that this
microprocessor-based inherent control device has its own CPU which could obviously
be programmed to take exclusive control of the display device when the memory 6 of
Watanabe is attached [id., pages 4-5].
It is apparent from this rejection that the examiner’s finding that the claimed
control device is taught by Watanabe is based on a chain of speculative assumptions
that are not found anywhere in Watanabe. We agree with appellants that a control
device having the properties recited in claim 1 is not taught by Watanabe. We also
agree with appellants that even if a control device is present somewhere in Watanabe,
there is no teaching that this control device is programmed to selectively provide the
supplemental information support system with exclusive control over the display device
as claimed. Although the data displayed in Watanabe may come from memory 6 when
memory 6 is attached, that description does not teach or suggest that memory 6 has
exclusive control over the display device as claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007