Appeal No. 1999-1606
Application No. 08/968,384
devices” [answer-pages 3-4].
Further, the examiner relies on Sawdon for a teaching of identification codes stored in a non-volatile
memory of a display module. The examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious to further modify the modified Hogdahl system with the teaching of Sawdon “so the
identification code would be changed if needed.”
For their part, appellants contend that Hogdahl does not disclose a portable computer having a
computer module and a detachable flat panel display hinged to close over the computer case to provide
a compact package for transport and storage.
We disagree with appellants. Figure 4 of Hogdahl clearly shows that the flat panel display is
detachable and there are many references, within column 1 alone, within Hogdahl that the computer
may be a “portable” or “notebook-sized” computer. If the computer is of the “notebook-sized” variety,
the skilled artisan would have recognized that the display would be “hinged to close over the computer
case to provide a compact package for transport and storage.” But, in any event, it is unclear as to
what claim language appellants rely for this argument since we find no such language in the claims
before us. The closest language appears to be in claim 11 which recites “hinged mounting structure”
but appellants do not appear to separately argue the limitations of claim 11.
With regard to the IBM references, appellants contend that these references are concerned with a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007