Appeal No. 95-3254
Application 08/029,492
to claims 11 and 13, while Araki in view of Mohler is relied upon
by the examiner to reject claims 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 27, 30 and
31. In another rejection the examiner has relied upon the
combination of teachings from Araki, Mohler and Maeser as to
claims 28 and 29. Araki and Rabeisen are used to reject claims
5, 6 and 17, with the addition of Mohler as to claims 22 and 23.
The examiner has relied upon Araki in view of Mohler, further in
view of Saito as to claims 25 and 26, with the further addition
of Maeser and Rabeisen as to claims 18 and 19. Finally, Araki
and Saito are relied upon to reject claims 8 and 9.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse all rejections of the claims on appeal.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in light of Araki alone, this claim requires “a lid portion
containing a display coupled to the central processing unit and a
projector for projecting video information from the central
processing unit.” We agree with appellant’s view that this
limitation is not taught or suggested in Araki.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007