Appeal No. 96-3288
Application 08/309,544
entry operation with the finger palette 20-stylus ring 10
combination. Thus, we do not understand why the artisan would
have found it obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to have modified
Levine in view of Garwin’s teaching.
We also do not understand why the artisan would have
found it obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to have modified
Garwin’s teachings in light of Levine. The examiner’s
approach may be based upon the general, broad teaching of
Levine that this reference indicates it was known in the art
to have devices attached to the thumb and fingers of users
typing information on a keyboard as shown in Levine’s Fig. 2
such that, on this basis, the examiner took the view that it
would have been obvious for the artisan to have modified the
stylus of Garwin in view of Levine. The self-contained nature
of Levine’s teachings leads away from this interpretation. If
we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the artisan
would have so combined a general teaching from Levine of hand
or finger mounted data entry means with the stylus of Garwin,
the examiner’s position does not come to grips with the
majority of the limitations of each independent claim on
appeal other than to dismiss them as “design choice”. Why the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007