Appeal No. 2003-0160
Application No. 08/971,320
examiner has initially established a prima facie case of obviousness of independent
claim 1.
Appellant argues that the combination of Stephan and Siefer teach a pointing
device within which the working surface of the tablet is illuminated. Appellant argues
that the housing as described in the present invention comprises an “actual housing
with illuminated exterior surfaces that holds or contains the working components of the
pointing device, the working components including elements such as switches on a
mouse or a working surface of a touchpad.” (See brief at page 5.) Here, we note that it
is the language of the claim that we address and not the invention described in the
specification that we evaluate the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness against.
Appellant argues that the working surface of the touchpad of Siefer is not the same as
a housing since the touchpad is held within a distinct and separate housing and is not
itself a housing. We disagree with appellant and find that the language of independent
claim 1 does not require a single unitary housing, does not require all of the
components within the housing, nor that part of the housing may not be a functional
part of the pointing device. The claim merely recites “a housing having one or more
illuminated exterior surfaces to render the device visible in a low-light or no-light
environment.” In our view, the teachings of Siefer would provide an illuminated exterior
surface of the device and that illumination would render the device visible in a low-light
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007