Appeal No. 95-3338
Application 07/994,035
screen, in the second position the cover exposing the
input/output screen for use, the cover defining a window
permitting a portion of the input/output screen to be viewed even
when the cover is in the first position.
The examiner relies on the following references:
York 4,918,632 Apr. 17, 1990
Derocher Des. 321,865 Nov. 26, 1991
Blonder 5,103,376 Apr. 7, 1992
Hawkins et al. 5,200,913 Apr. 6, 1993
(filed Feb. 14, 1992)
Moser et al. (Moser) 5,237,488 Aug. 17, 1993
(filed May 11, 1992)
Claims 1 through 3, 8, 9, 11 through 13, 15 through 18
and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. The examiner advances
two alternate theories of obviousness, one based on Derocher,
alone, and the other based on the combination of York, Moser and
either one of Hawkins or Blonder.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details of the positions of appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
The burden of establishing unpatentability of a claimed
invention rests upon the examiner. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Thorpe, 777
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007