Appeal No. 2005-2759
Application No. 10/221,916
However, we do find persuasive of patentability the argument
that Lutterbach does not disclose or suggest altering the display
based on detection of the portable transmitter, as required by
independent claims 6, 11, and 14.
The examiner contends that the teaching of altering the
display may be found at column 4, lines 43-63, of Lutterbach.
However, our review of that portion of the reference, as well as
the entire rest of the reference finds, only that the portable
transmitter 54 of Lutterbach is used only to provide feedback
information as a marketing tool. Thus, the transmitter is used by
the customer for responding to instructions to press a particular
button on the transmitter according to preferences or the like
relating to the advertising material on the screen. However, the
user’s action regarding the transmitter does not alter the display,
except, perhaps, in the very broad sense that the marketing agency
will eventually use the response, along with other responses, to,
one day, alter the advertisement shown on the screen, in response
to these responses as to users’ likes and dislikes. In our view,
this does not constitute an altering of the display “based on a
detection of the portable transmitter in the waiting area,” as
claimed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007