Appeal No. 2006-0432
Application No. 09/968,085
indicated why he believes that this disclosure “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.” To whatever extent
appellant is basing this argument on the one made supra with
regard to claims 1 and 9, in terms of Levine disclosing the
opposite of what is claimed, we will sustain the rejection of
this claim for the reasons supra, with regard to claims 1 and 9.
It is certainly not clear from the Levine disclosure that Levine
is programming his chart recorder in an opposite manner as the
broadly claimed instant invention.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
With regard to claim 9, appellant argues that Levine does
not disclose the pen moving over alphanumeric parameters for the
purpose of programming the instrument. Rather, asserts
appellant, the printed alphanumeric characters in Levine are
“simply there so that once the chart is recorded, one can look at
the curve made by the pen, to see what the temperature, humidity,
or other characteristics changed over time” (brief-page 6).
Appellant asserts that these printed alphanumeric characters in
Levine have nothing to do with programming the instrument.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007