Appeal 2006-2748
Application 10/123,268
1 Baerlocher. The recognized advantages of conservation of display space and
2 reduction of costs would have been sufficient to motivate a person of
3 ordinary skill in the art to modify the Baerlocher device so as to display the
4 plurality of wheels in a concentric manner.
5 The use of concentric wheels in the Baerlocher context would have
6 been no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
7 established functions.
8 In regard to the second issue, we note that Baerlocher explicitly
9 discloses displaying a portion of a wheel (Figure 4) as is recited in claim 2.
10 We also agree with the Examiner that the provision of rectangular
11 wheels rather than circular wheels would have been an obvious design
12 choice well within the skills of a person of ordinary skill. We are not
13 persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the provision of rectangular wheels
14 would not have been obvious because rectangular wheels do not spin as is
15 required by Baerlocher and Mangano because both of these references
16 display the wheels on video monitors. Rectangular wheels can indeed spin
17 on a video monitor.
18 In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
19 claims 1 and 2. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims
20 4, 8 to 11, 13, 14, 16, 20 to 23, 26, 27, 29, 33 to 36 and 38 because the
21 Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of these claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013