Appeal No. 2005-1471 Page 9
Application No. 10/028,833
when the display panel 76 is in a folded position. The keyboard 72 and trackball 74
enable the user to input commands and data to the control panel 40.
Figure 4 of Williams depicts a block diagram of the control panel circuitry. The
heart of the control panel 40 is a microprocessor 82 having internal random access
memory (RAM) and read-only memory (ROM). The microprocessor 82 is connected via
a communications buss 84 to an interface control module 120 (see Figure 5).
In this rejection (final rejection, p. 3), the examiner determined that it would have
been obvious to the skilled artisan to have upgraded the controls of the Marra bed side
rail structure with a microprocessor control that includes a display screen that provides
variable graphical information as taught by Williams. The motivation would have been
to provide the benefits of a programmable control unit for the bed, in which the control
unit is essentially a microcomputer that is easily operated and controlled by a user.
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 4-6; reply brief, pp. 2-3) that
the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed subject matter. In our view, the
teachings of Williams would have suggested replacing the bed side rail controls of
Marra with an articulated control panel that includes a display screen as taught by
Williams. However, such a modification of Marra does not result in the subject matter of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007