Appeal No. 2002-1753
Application No. 09/243,451
We agree that Jackson’s preferred embodiment contemplates the use of
numerical information rather than graphical information. This is seen at column 7, lines
5 et seq., where the main display 70 is said to give vehicle operators “information”
about the availability of parking spaces in each area and where area displays 72 are
said to “communicate parking availability information.” Of course, “information” could
be any type of information, including graphical, but Jackson explains, further down in
column 7, lines 21-30, that the main display and area displays may inform vehicle
operators of parking availability “by presenting the percentage occupancy of each level”
or by displaying “the actual number of available parking spaces on each level.”
External display 73 is said to indicate “the total [number of] spaces available” (line 29).
Such disclosures appear to indicate that Jackson contemplates numerical displays, as
alleged by appellants.
However, the artisan is more than a layman (Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1,
148 USPQ 459 (1966) and must be presumed to be able to exercise a minimum of skill
(In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985)), knowledge (In re Jacoby,
309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)) and common sense (In re Bozek, 416
F.2d 1385, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969)) in adapting a reference to various situations.
While Jackson may have a preference for numerical displays, the artisan, at the
time of Jackson’s invention, clearly knew of alphanumeric displays, as evidenced by
Jackson’s use of such displays at the cashier’s terminal (column 7, lines 35-37) for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007