Appeal No. 95-0794
Application No. 08/220,406
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse as we find that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant
claimed subject matter.
The examiner contends that Toshiba discloses the claimed
invention except for the cover hinged to the computer and we
agree. The examiner also contends that Lloyd teaches the
provision of a cover hinged to a computer and, again, we agree.
However, the examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious “to provide a cover hinged to a computer as taught by
Lloyd, since Lloyd states at column 1, line 61-column 2, line 12
that such a modification would provide a high degree of
protection for the computer” [answer-page 3]. The examiner’s
further explanations, at page 4 of the answer, as to how one
would make the selection of how to mount the cover, appear, to
us, to be no more than impermissible hindsight.
The instant claims call for a cover “pivotally attached to
said base portion” [claim 1], “pivotally attached to the second
end of said base portion” [claim 10], or “flexibly connected to
said second panel” [claim 17]. Toshiba, as the examiner
recognizes, has no such cover. Moreover, the skilled artisan
would not have seen the need to supply a cover in Toshiba since
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007