Appeal No. 2003-1866
Application 08/839,361
pages 16, 17, and 23), we find a clear suggestion in Parulski of
providing a user with a choice of visible medium input devices,
i.e., photo or film readers, as claimed, while the Parulski
reference incorporation of Kristy (column 1, lines 35-41) into
its disclosure suggests its combination. We also reiterate our
previous view that Kristy’s clear teaching of an interactive
display terminal would suggest the obviousness to the skilled
artisan of enabling the input medium selection by a screen
selection display, and that Yamamoto’s charging information
disclosure has clear applicability to the system of Kristy.
Accordingly, since the Examiner’s prima facie case of obvious-
ness has not been overcome by any convincing arguments from
Appellants, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 40 based on the combination of
Kristy, Yamamoto, and Parulski.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 13, 18, and 23 based on the
proposed combination of Kristy and Yamamoto, we note that these
claims are directed to details of the fee charging printing,
displaying, and confirming features of Appellants’ invention.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007