Appeal No. 2004-2043
Application 09/312,919
Appellants further argue at page 5 of the brief, “because
the display in the disclosed embodiments is small, it would not
be possible to implement the keyboard functionality on the
display.” We find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive.
Appellants have provided no evidence to support their argument
that small size equates to inoperability. We find that at most
the small size might equate to inconvenience and thus may be an
indication of inferiority. The fact that a combination of
references is inferior does not teach away from making the
combination. “A known or obvious composition does not become
patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat
inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley,
27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellants also argue at pages 5-7 of the brief, “Hitchcock
offers no rationale for the inclusion of a touch screen” and “the
Examiner’s . . . rejection constitutes improper hindsight.” We
find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive. Express suggestion
to substitute one equivalent technique for another need not be
present to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675
F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982); In Siebentritt, 372
F.2d 566, 568, 152 USPQ 618, 619 (CCPA 1967). Here, we find it
abundantly clear that the combined teachings of Karasawa and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007