Appeal 2007-0262
Application 09/925,258
feature. We further find no error, and we find no convincing arguments to
the contrary from Appellants, in the Examiner’s finding that the intermittent
window display feature taught by Wilks would serve as an obvious
enhancement to the system of Trueblood. As taught by Wilks, the
intermittent window display periodically directs a user’s attention to the
intermittently displayed window without interfering with other displayed
program windows.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 based on the
combination of Trueblood and Wilks is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 6-10 and 16-20 in which the Ohmori reference
has been applied to Trueblood, we sustain this rejection as well. As with the
previously discussed rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, although
Appellants contend (Br. 15) that Ohmori lacks a disclosure of the claimed
“detecting” and “enabling” features, these features are disclosed by
Trueblood. We also find no error in the Examiner’s finding of obviousness
to the skilled artisan of applying the audio and video alert teachings of
Ohmori to Trueblood for all of the reasons articulated by the Examiner at
pages 7 and 12 of the Answer.
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 21 based on Trueblood alone. Appellants have made no
separate argument with the respect to the claimed wireless device features of
this claim. Instead, Appellants’ arguments reiterate the contention that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013