Appeal No. 96-0300
Application 08/090,285
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of independent claim 22
and its various dependent claims in light of Vela alone, as
well as the separate rejection of additional dependent claims
of claim 22 in light of Vela and Tannehill collectively, we
reverse the rejection of all these claims.
At the top of page 4 of the examiner’s answer, the
examiner recognizes that Vela does not disclose that the
control means of independent claim 22 is thumb operated while
gripping the hand grip. The examiner considers that it would
have been obvious to the artisan that the size and location of
the display unit, the size of the user’s thumbs and the
location of placement of one’s hands on the hand grip would
have been arbitrary design choices to the extent recited in
independent claim 22, since a user may be capable of operating
the control means while gripping the hand grip if desired.
The examiner further considers the exact location of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007