Appeal No. 96-3288
Application 08/309,544
Garwin in view of Levine as to claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 to 16,
with the addition of Gilchrist as to claim 5, and with a
separate addition of Narayanan as to the original combination
for claim 6.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse all rejections.
At page 4 of the answer, the examiner asserts that it
would have been obvious for the artisan to have included the
ring means taught by Levine in the device of Garwin so that
the stylus [in Garwin?] could have been mounted on a finger
and would not have interfered with a typing operation. In
reality, there are two ring means in Levine’s figures 1 and 2,
that of the stylus ring 10 with its stylus ring point 12 and
that of the finger palette 20 and its associated ring 24. We
are not sure how this combination would be achieved.
We agree with one of appellant’s views that Levine’s
device appears to be self contained and would not require the
user to remove a hand from a keyboard to enable a certain data
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007