Appeal No. 2002-1753
Application No. 09/243,451
including both locational information and information regarding relative numbers of
available and unavailable monitored spaces in said facility.”
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
With regard to claim 14, appellants argue that this claim is specific to the kind of
advertising display used and that the examiner has not shown this to have been taught
in the prior art. The claim calls for the advertising to be in a form of either “a static
poster-type display,” “a moving text display,” or “a dynamic video display.”
As explained supra, while Jackson may not explicitly disclose a certain type of
display, the artisan is presumed to know something about the art in addition to what a
reference explicitly discloses. In the instant case, once it is determined that the artisan
would have found it obvious to present advertising messages on the display of Jackson,
the artisan would have been familiar with the types of displays recited in claim 14 and
would have found it obvious to employ such well known displays for displaying a
message. Appellants have presented nothing to convince us that something would
have led the artisan away from using any one of these well known displays.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
We will also sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 since
appellants do not separately argue the merits of this claim.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007