Appeal No. 2005-2268 Page 3
Application No. 09/976,683
8. According to the specification, combining the electronic screen and the
interactive terminal, maximizes usage of display hardware "to improve its cost
effectiveness and to enhance its commercial value by providing other modes of
commercial promotion." (Id. at p. 2, ll. 6-8.)
B. Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,543,684 ("White"). The examiner also cites
U.S. Patent No. 6,603,447 ("Ito") to rebut arguments made by the appellant in his
appeal brief.
2. Claims 8, 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected as unpatentable under § 103(a) as
obvious over White and U.S. Patent No. 6,536,658 ("Rantze"). The examiner also cites
Ito to rebut arguments made by the appellant in his brief.
3. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected as unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious
over White; Rantze; and U.S. Patent No. 6,239,898 ("Byker"). The examiner also cites
Ito to rebut arguments made by the appellant in his appeal brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007