Appeal No. 2006-0785
Application No. 09/683,531
by Albert. Appellant’s arguments notwithstanding, we agree with
the examiner that the teachings of Albert are combinable with the
teachings of Bloch for the limited purpose of making the display
label in Bloch a bistable display.
With respect to independent claims 9 and 18, we will sustain
the examiner’s rejection. These claims differ from claims 1 and
10 in the recitation of “user configurable pattern electrodes”
and “configuring a set of electrodes.” Appellant asserts that
configuration of the electrodes in Bloch is transparent to the
user so that they are not user configurable. The examiner
asserts that electrodes 316 in Bloch are shaped to display all
numbers and letters. As with the term “label” discussed above,
it is not clear that the examiner and appellant have interpreted
“user configurable pattern electrodes” in the same manner. We
note that Bloch teaches that the display can use seven segment
devices, 12 segment devices or 5x7 dot matrix elements [column 4,
lines 40-48]. Each of these display configurations would have a
different pattern of electrodes. Thus, we are of the view that
the user selection of the type of display in Bloch, each of which
has a different pattern of electrodes, represents user
configurable pattern electrodes within the broadest reasonable
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007