Appeal No. 2002-1995
Application No. 09/071,488
The examiner is not suggesting that the lack of teaching of
the use of a single hand to hold the device in Michel actually
provides such a teaching. Rather, the examiner is urging, and we
agree, that the artisan viewing the teachings of Michel would
have found it obvious to hold device 32 in one hand and
simultaneously operate buttons on one side of the device with
that single hand.
Appellants argue that Michel is silent as to whether an
individual can grasp and navigate the prior art device with a
single hand (principal brief-page 7), but it is our opinion that
Michel clearly implies, from the drawing in Figure 5b, that the
device may be operated with one hand if only the buttons on one
side of device 32 are to be operated.
Appellants allege that Michel actually “teaches away” from
the claimed invention (principal brief-page 7). We disagree.
Michel discloses nowhere that only two hands must be used and
that a single hand could not hold and operate the device. If the
reference did have such a disclosure, this might be construed as
a teaching away. However, Michel contains no such disclosure.
Appellants argue that operating the device of Michel with a
single hand would change the principle of operation of the device
(principal brief-page 7). We disagree. It is not understood how
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007