Appeal 2006-3245
Application 10/383,224
time, wherein the presentation of time is periodic, continuous and unambiguous
within a period of the at least one element with periodic time-dependent
behaviour” as recited in independent claim 6. Because there is no teaching,
suggestion, or motivation in Hirvonen that would have led one having ordinary
skill in the art to the invention recited in independent claims 1 and 6, it follows that
dependent claims 4, 5, and 9 are not rendered obvious in view of Hirvonen.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hirvonen, and erred in rejecting
claims 4, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Hirvonen.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 is not sustained.
REVERSED
jrg
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013