Appeal No. 95-3908
Application No. 07/890,350
We turn now to the rejection of claims 17, 22 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dunn, Hattori and Washizuka.
Again, because the examiner appears to have constructed the
combination of references by fitting together bits and pieces
of the claimed subject matter based on hindsight gleaned from
the instant claims, we will not sustain this rejection.
As appellant points out, at pages 12-13 of the principal
brief, the examiner appears to have ignored the claim
limitations relating to the first and second liquid crystal
displays and the dual function of the keys, along with their
specific cooperation with the other claimed elements. In the
response to this argument, at page 12 of the principal answer,
the examiner states that Dunn discloses a first liquid crystal
display on the inside cover while Hattori teaches a liquid
crystal keyboard. However true this might be, the examiner
has provided no convincing rationale as to why the artisan
would have chosen only the keyboard of Hattori to be combined
with only the inside cover display of Dunn. Again, the
examiner chooses only so much of one reference required by the
instant claims to be combined with only so much of another
reference in order to piece together the claimed subject
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007