Appeal No. 2002-1753
Application No. 09/243,451
not occupied and the display can be easily perceived from a distance. We also agree
with the examiner that while Jackson does not explicitly disclose the display as being
arranged as a “light array,” it would have been obvious to use such a display since light
arrays were but one of many types of displays known to artisans at the time of
appellants’ invention. Appellants do not present any convincing evidence that such light
arrays were not known at the time or that it would not have been obvious to use such a
display because of certain circumstances. In fact, appellants admit that Jackson uses
displays for indicating numerical information. Clearly, light arrays, such as the well
known Figure-8 arrangement of diodes in an LED display, were known to display
alphanumerical information.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to claims 8, 10 and 13, these claims are directed to the display of
occupancy information and advertising. Appellants urge that Jackson’s display of
numerical information would not meet language of these claims because appellants
believe that “customers can much more quickly absorb information which is presented
in graphical formats than in a numerical or percentage format” (principal brief-page 7).
We understand the differences between the instant invention and that depicted
by Jackson. However, for the reasons supra, we find that it would have been obvious
to artisans, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §103, to have employed the displays in
Jackson for disseminating the claimed information.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007