Appeal 2007-1468
Application 09/912,784
ISSUES
Appellants argue, on page 20 of the Brief, that the rejection of claims
18 through 20, 31, 33, 39, 41 through 43, and 51 through 52 is in error.
Appellants state that the rejection is erroneous for the reasons discussed with
respect to the rejection of AARA and Ishigaki discussed above and because
the Examiner has not provided evidence to support the noticed facts.
The Examiner asserts that the rejection is proper. On page 21 of the
Answer cites Onsen, Asami and Lester as evidentiary support for the noticed
facts.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with two issues, whether the
arguments directed to the rejection of AARA and Ishigaki is in error and
whether the Examiner has provided evidence to support the noticed facts.
ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that claims 18 through 20, 31, and 51 through 52
depend on one of claims 17, 26, 45, 49 or 54. As discussed above, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 26, 45, 49 or 54. Thus, for the
same reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 through 20,
30, 31, and 51 through 52.
Claims 33, 39, and 41 through 43 depend upon claims 32, 36, and 40
respectively. As discussed above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims. Claim 33 recites “the notification device further comprises a
light emitting diode.” Claims 39, 41, and 42 recite similar limitations
directed to light emitting diodes and indication. Claim 43 recites a text
display. The Examiner took Official Notice that use of a light emitting diode
and text displays to provide notification was known. On page 21 of the
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013