Appeal No. 2006-1252 Page 8
Application No. 10/310,886
history (116) of each spray gun, as well as a graph of the pressure of a particular
gun over time (Figures 3 and 4). Appellant has not offered any explanation as to
why the showing of calibration history and pressure pointed to by the examiner
would not satisfy the language of claim 3 urged not to be met by Whitmore. The
rejection of claim 3, as well as claims 4, 5 and 7 which appellant has not argued
separately apart from claim 3, is sustained.
With respect to claim 6, appellant argues, on page 12 of the brief, that the
applied references fail to disclose, teach or suggest that the user interface is
interactive and includes a plurality of commands for selection by the user and
asserts that Whitmore’s disclosure (col. 3, ll. 4-9) that the operator interface
enables the operator to input data and make changes still fails to address a user
interface that includes a plurality of commands for selection by the user as required
in claim 6. Be that as it may, Scherer’s teaching (col. 5, ll. 12-37) of providing a
touch-sensitive screen on the local computer to permit specific sequences or
queries displayed on the screen to be started directly by touching corresponding
symbols or icons to permit control and monitoring of the various field devices in
the different work stations would have suggested an interactive user interface
including a plurality of commands for selection by the user to control the liquid
dispensing devices of Whitmore. Appellant’s argument is thus unpersuasive of
any error on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 6 as being unpatentable
over Whitmore in view of Scherer. The rejection is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007