Appeal 2007-1468
Application 09/912,784
Answer, the Examiner cited Asami as evidentiary support that using light
emitting diodes were known and Lester as support to show that text displays
were known. We note that Appellants’ Reply Brief does not contest the
factual evidence supplied by the Examiner to support the noticed facts. As
such, we accept the noticed facts as un-contested. For the forgoing reasons,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 33, 39, and 41 through 43.
III) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over
Applicant Admitted Related Art (AARA) in view of Ishigaki
and Sporty’s.
ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 20 and 21 of the Brief that the rejection of
claims 22 and 23 is in error. Appellants’ arguments directed to the
combination of AARA and Ishigaki discussed above also apply to this
rejection. Further, the Appellants assert that Sporty does not teach the
claimed feature which requires the user to hold the electrical switch during
the scan.
The Examiner asserts that the rejection is proper. The Examiner finds
that Sporty teaches that a seek is initiated when a button is pressed.
Appellants’ contentions present us with two issues, first as is the
rejection of claim 22 in error for the reasons discussed above concerning the
rejection based upon AARA and Ishigaki and second whether Sporty teaches
the claimed feature of the user holding the switch during the seek period.
ANALYSIS
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013