Appeal No. 95-3908
Application No. 07/890,350
matter without a fair suggestion as to why the artisan would
have been led to make the combination. This is improper under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to the “animated” claim limitation, the
examiner merely points to the disclosure of “cartoons” at
column 2, line 8 of Washizuka and concludes that the claim
limitation is taught. However, not only does it appear that
there would have been no motivation for the artisan to have
provided such “cartoons” in Dunn’s device, but the mere
disclosure of “cartoons” by Washizuka does not, necessarily,
suggests that Washizuka intends for “animated” pictorial
representations since animation requires some movement while
“cartoons” might include still pictures. Thus, at the very
least, speculation is required to find a teaching of the
claimed “animated pictorial representations.”
Turning to independent claim 18, the examiner now bases
the rejection on Krenz, Thom and Hattori, no longer relying on
Dunn. We find no reason to modify the Krenz structure in
accordance with Thom’s teaching of providing a recess in which
to place the keyboard. There would have been no reason to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007