Appeal No. 2005-0429 Page 8
Application No. 09/872,209
As with claim 1 discussed above, we note that both Appellants and the
Examiner have given significant weight to the word “user” in claim 7. Again, we
find this weight to be unjustified as there are no structural elements in claim 7
that are not found in Shinohara. Shinohara teaches an interface (10) allowing
selection between the two timing means (Column 3, lines 19-23). As with claim
1, Appellants are arguing that the structure of the claimed interface differs from
the structure in Shinohara merely because a “user” is the source of the “mode
signal.” Again, we find the opposite.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007