Appeal No. 2002-1753
Application No. 09/243,451
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc. , 776
F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017
(1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ
929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
While the examiner’s reliance on Becker for a teaching of advertising appears to
be misplaced, the examiner also states, at page 7 of the answer, that “[t]o add
‘advertising’ to any display would have certainly been obvious, if not inherent and could
certainly not be the difference in determining patentability.” We agree that it would
have been obvious to include advertising messages in the displays of Jackson’s parking
management system.
Appellants argue that the claims recite much more than simply a graphical
monitor; rather they recite “a non-numerical depiction of parking space availability”
(reply brief-page 2). Appellants point out that Jackson not only does not teach inclusion
of advertising or graphical information on the displays disclosed therein, but Jackson, at
column 7, lines 21-26, clearly discusses the “numerical” nature of the information of the
displays contemplated.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007