Appeal No. 95-3338
Application 07/994,035
v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 774 F.2 1082, 1092, 227 USPQ 337, 343 (Fed.
Cir. 1985), vacated, 475 U.S. 809, 229 USPQ 478 (1986), aff'd. on
remand, 810 F.2d 1561, 1 USPQ2d 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1987). It should
be recognized that the fact that the prior art could be modified
so as to result in the combination defined by the claims at bar
would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggests the desirability of the modification. In re Deminski,
796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
No rationale has been presented as to why the artisan
would have been led by the references to include a cover having a
window for permitting a portion of the computer screen to be
viewed with the cover in a closed position. As such, the
examiner has failed to establish a case of prima facie
obviousness necessary to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
More particularly, with regard to the rejection of all
claims relying on Derocher, alone, the examiner recognizes that
the reference lacks a teaching of the "window" feature claimed.
The examiner then relies on this feature to have been "old and
well known," citing "cassette player, CD player" and concluding
that it would have been obvious to apply this "window" feature in
Derocher [answer, page 4].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007