Ex Parte Hamilton - Page 2



         Appeal No. 2006-0785                                                       
         Application No. 09/683,531                                                 

              a microcontroller that receives the operating signal                  
         generated by the energy source and a signal from the optical data          
         link and provides a control signal to the bistable display device          
         so that an image is generated on the label of the recording                
         media, wherein the label is automatically updated by the                   
         recording/play device.                                                     
         The examiner relies on the following references:                           
         Bloch et al. (Bloch)          5,745,102          Apr. 28, 1998             
         Albert et al. (Albert)        6,118,426          Sep. 12, 2000             
              Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As              
         evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Bloch in view of               
         Albert.                                                                    
         Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the                       
         examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the           
         respective details thereof.                                                
         OPINION                                                                    
         We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,                 
         the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence of                 
         obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the                 
         rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                     
         consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s                   
         arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s                
         rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal            
         set forth in the examiner’s answer.                                        

                                         2                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007