Appeal No. 96-1614
Application No. 08/236,660
it is being shut down due to inactivity as taught by
Wickstead. In other words, Wickstead basically teaches the
obviousness of taking action in any electronic device based on
a time interval of inactivity. The question is whether the
artisan would have considered it obvious within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103 to take an audible action in Fong in view of
the collective teachings of the references and the level of
skill in the art. We are of the view that the broad
recitation of emanating a sound when a predetermined time
interval of inactivity has expired would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art of consumer electronics.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 22-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
We now consider the rejection of claims 19-21 as
unpatentable over the teachings of Fong in view of Smalligan.
We will consider this rejection with respect to claim 21 as
representative of all the claims within this group. This
rejection is set forth on page 6 of the answer. The rejection
identifies the tracing sheet mounted on the tablet as the
difference between Fong and the invention of claim 21. The
examiner cites Smalligan as teaching this feature and the
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007