Appeal No. 95-3908
Application No. 07/890,350
provide such a recess in Krenz. Moreover, claim 18 requires
that the keyboard be “releasably secured” in the recess and
there is no teaching of this limitation in either Krenz or
Thom.
Claim 18 also requires the keyboard to have a dimensional
size “substantially the same as said second portion bottom
recess...” While the examiner apparently concludes that this
is the case in Thom, appellant concludes otherwise, stating
that in Thom, the keyboard can only be fit “partially” under
the printer. While the figures in Thom, e.g., Figure 3, would
appear to indicate that the keyboard therein is much larger
than the space in which it fits, it may also be true that the
drawings are not to scale. The important point here is that
we just don’t know. We must resort to speculation in order to
determine if Thom actually teaches that the dimensional size
of the key input means is “substantially the same size as said
second portion...” and we cannot bottom a finding of
obviousness on such speculation.
Finally, we turn to claim 3. However, claim 3 depends
from independent claim 1 and we find no indication that the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007