Appeal No. 2002-1798
Application 09/238,804
obviousness analysis when timely filed, the examiner has failed
to perform a complete Graham v. John Deere analysis.
Accordingly, the rejections of claims 26-35 are reversed and the
case is remanded for the examiner to provide a written analysis
of the objective evidence of nonobviousness.3
In addition, since the examiner must reopen prosecution to
consider the objective evidence of nonobviousness, we take this
opportunity to point out better prior art that should be added to
the rejection in the interest of presenting the best possible
case (see footnote 2). First, the reference to Carey et al.
(Carey), U.S. Patent 3,544,958, cited by appellants in the
background of the invention (specification, p. 1), shows a
roadside speed display sign having a digital speed display 22.
When the measured speed is above the legal limit, red warning
sign 26, which reads "Your Speed Is," red warning sign 23, which
reads "Slow Down," and warning light 25 will be lit in addition
to the speed indicator 22; when the measured speed is below the
legal limit, green approval sign 27, which reads "Your Speed Is,"
and green approval sign 24, which reads "Safe Drivers Live," are
lit in addition to the speed indicator 22 (col. 3, lines 9-50).
3 We reverse to make it clear that appellants may be
entitled to a term adjustment in any patent which may issue.
We remand so that the examiner need not seek permission of the
Director to reopen prosecution under 37 CFR § 1.198.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007