Appeal No. 2002-1753
Application No. 09/243,451
Claims 1, 3, 8-14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable
over Jackson in view of Becker.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that the examiner has filed an examiner’s answer
subsequent to appellants’ reply brief. The rules do not provide for this additional
answer and it is improper for the examiner to file it. In this case, it is harmless because
the answer is the same, in all aspects, as the original answer but for an indication, in
the second answer, that the statement of the status of the claims contained in the brief
is not correct.
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner indicates that Jackson
substantially discloses the claimed subject matter, including one or more displays, but
that Jackson does not indicate that the displays are equipped to display advertising in
addition to information about parking space availability.
The examiner turns to Becker for a disclosure of a color graphic terminal for
monitoring an alarm system and concludes that it would have been obvious to include
Becker’s graphic monitor 4, which is equipped to display advertising, into the system of
Jackson “in order to make the technique for facilitating and monitoring vehicle parking
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007