Appeal No. 95-3254
Application 08/029,492
adjacent projector portion which projects images from the central
processing unit.
As to these deficiencies, the examiner’s combination of
Araki and Mohler does not cure at least this defect as to
independent claims 20 and 31. Turning to independent claims 18
and 19, the examiner has combined all five references relied upon
in the answer in an effort to reach the subject matter of these
claims. It is difficult to follow and understand the examiner’s
reasoning as to any rationale, motivation or line of reasoning
why the artisan would have found it obvious to have combined
the teachings and suggestions of each of the respective
references in any manner let alone in the manner claimed to reach
the subject matter of independent claims 18 and 19 on appeal. In
any event, we find that none of the five references relied upon
to reject claims 18 and 19 or any combination of these references
would have led the artisan to have formed a single lid portion
with a liquid crystal display, the lid portion further having a
projector for projecting either video information from the
central processing unit or projecting images from the central
processing unit as claimed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007