Appeal No. 2006-0165
Application 10/292,721
Suarez would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill
in the art, coupling both the assignment message display and a
metering display to the same processor to avoid the expense of a
second processor for displaying the metering data.
Unexpected results
The appellant argues (brief, pages 21-26) that the
declaration of John L. Lu (signed November 23, 2004) points out
that the reference would not have suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, the claim limitations argued in the appellant’s
brief. Lu’s arguments are essentially a repeat of the
appellant’s arguments discussed above, and are not convincing for
the reasons given with respect to the appellant’s arguments.
The appellant argues that the declarations of James D.
Campolongo (signed December 8, 2004) and the inventor, David N.
Himebaugh (signed November 23, 2004), indicate a long felt need
to accomplish what the appellant’s invention accomplishes, and
show that noone has combined all of the technologies encompassed
by the appellant’s claims (brief, pages 27-28). The need was
long felt because the computer technology had not been developed
sufficiently to carry out the requirements those claims. Once
the computer technology was developed, using it to carry out the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007