Appeal No. 2002-1753
Application No. 09/243,451
communicating a “brief message” (line 41). Jackson preferred numerical displays
because Jackson was only interested in displaying numerical information to vehicle
operators, indicative of the number of parking spaces available. However, the artisan
would have been expected to know that Jackson’s main and area displays may display
any information, or type of information, desired, from numerical to alphanumerical to
other types of graphical information (alpha symbols clearly being a type of graphical
display).
We find no patentable distinction over Jackson in appellants’ use of known
displays of alphanumeric and/or graphical information in order to display advertising, or
other types of, messages (claims 1 and 19) or other non-numerical information (claims
12 and 19) on the main and area displays of Jackson. We find Becker to be merely
cumulative of Jackson in teaching messages/graphics to be displayed on a color
display.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 12 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Turning to claim 3, appellants urge that the use of a “light array” for the claimed
“third display” distinguishes over Jackson. We agree with the examiner that Jackson
clearly discloses a third display device 50 mounted on the ceiling 26 in aisle 30 in front
of space 28, wherein display 50 indicates that the space associated with the display is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007