Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
chart recorder once programmed. We disagree. As broadly
claimed, the “options” merely “relate” to one or more of the
listed elements in claim 6. Since the recorder in Levine may be
used to control various types of equipment in accordance with the
set points, this appears to be a fair disclosure of “options”
relating to at least “external control,” one of the options
listed in claim 6.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
With regard to claim 7, the examiner points to column 3,
lines 6-11, of Levine for a teaching of indexing the surface
relative to a start position in conjunction with the step of
storing information relating to the location of the visible
options. Appellant argues that this disclosure of Levine “has
nothing to do with indexing a surface to a start position in
conjunction with storing information relating to the location of
visible options, which are used for programming purposes, not the
other way around” (brief-page 6).
We are unpersuaded by appellant’s arguments since the
referenced portion of Levine does appear to be a disclosure of
“indexing the surface...” as claimed, and appellant has not
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007