Appeal No. 2006-0785
Application No. 09/683,531
interpretation of the claimed invention. Although the examiner
appears to be relying on the fact that the display elements in
Bloch can display different characters, we do not think it is
necessary to determine whether the different characters in Bloch
meet the recitation of user configurable pattern electrodes since
Bloch specifically teaches that different patterns for displaying
characters can be used.
With respect to the dependent claims, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of each of the dependent claims because
appellant has offered no arguments with respect to any of these
claims. Therefore, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection
with respect to each of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-18 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007