Appeal No. 2002-1995
Application No. 09/071,488
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)].
We have reviewed the evidence in the case, including the
arguments of appellants and the examiner and we conclude that,
unlike our decision in Application Serial No. 09/071,489, the
examiner in the instant case has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject
matter.
Similar to the issues in the previous case, appellants and
the examiner argue the “single hand” limitation.
While appellants argue that the device in Michel is not
operable with a single hand wherein a user simultaneously grasps
and operates a user input interface, the examiner urges that
Michel shows a user grasping the housing of the device in his
right hand in Figure 8 (see answer-page 3). While Figure 8 of
Michel appears to show a user employing both hands, this would
also entail the use of a single hand.
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007