Appeal No. 2005-2268 Page 16
Application No. 09/976,683
Here, because White switches between modes of display, and Rantze teaches
the desirability of switching between modes depending on the position or distance and
the movement of a customer, we find that the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested switching between modes of display in response to detecting the
approach of a passerby. In short, the appellant has merely used known elements for
their intended purposes to achieve expected results. Therefore, we affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 8 and of claims 10, 11, and 13, which fall therewith.
C. CLAIMS 3 AND 12
The examiner correctly concludes, "[i]t would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan at the time of the invention to combine replace the privacy panel of White with
the privacy panel of Byker because the[ privacy panels] solve the same problem of
privacy. . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) The appellant argues, "White et al. provides
screens only for the image of a key pad area 86, which always displays an image of a
key pad. There would thus never be a need for transparent panels to aid in viewing the
image in that area." (Appeal Br. at 5.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 3 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "said screen panels are
electronically changeable from a transparent to an opaque state, said panels
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007