Appeal No. 95-2600
Application 07/990,458
time of the invention. The reason, suggestion, or motivation for
modification may come from what is known to the person of
ordinary skill or from a specific teaching in the reference.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447-48, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1446-47 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Nies, C.J., concurring).
Appellant argues that Big Four Automotive Equipment Corp. v.
Jordan, 184 USPQ 80 (N.D. Ohio 1974) stands for the proposition
that a single element in a reference cannot be interpreted as two
different elements where the two elements perform two different
functions at the same time. The so-called rule about double
inclusion of elements is complicated, but it is not relevant
here. Different parts of the frame 20 in Suwa constitute
separate frame and housing structure. The fact that Suwa uses a
single reference numeral does not mean that the same element is
being used to meet two separate limitations.
Claims 15 and 16
As to claim 15, we agree with appellant that Suwa does not
disclose means for attaching the earphone "for rotation about a
vertical axis." "Vertical" must be interpreted consistent with
the specification and with the normal meaning of the term, to
mean "upright" when the display apparatus is in its normal
orientation. Therefore, we do not agree with the examiner that
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007