Appeal 2007-1568
Application 09/900,375
U.S.C. § 103(a)? Particularly, does Hepp’s disclosure of an optoelectronic
display with a figurative character and a timepiece render unpatentable
Appellant’s timepiece with a dial face for graphically representing thereon a
scheduled activity associated with a particular time?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. Appellant invented a timepiece (100) with a dial face (102), which
includes a display monitor (108) that can be programmed to form segments
that graphically represent time slots (110, 112, 114, and 116) allocated to
scheduled activities of a user’s personal calendar. (Specification 3.)
2. The length of each segment designates the duration of the activity
while the color of the segment indicates the type of activity. (Id.)
The Prior Art Relied Upon
3. Hepp teaches an optoelectronic display (1) for dynamically
representing information related to the course of time. (Col. 4, ll. 51-54.)
4. As depicted in Figure 1, Hepp’s display device (1) includes the time
of day (14), the position of the sun (6), the moon (8), selected stars (7), and
the horizon (5). (Col. 5, ll.1-4.)
5. The display device (1) also includes a timepiece with a computer
based clock (2). (Col. 5, ll. 12-13.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013