Appeal No. 96-2444
Application 08/360,194
functions and single switch activated by the user's digit and
by case closure are two main differences argued by the
appellants. Simplicity does not equate to obviousness. The
examiner has offered only conclusions and speculation about
what would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. We believe the examiner must present factual evidence or
more persuasive argument rather than mere conclusions to
address differences at the contested point of novelty. The
rejection is based on obviousness and, therefore, we do not
expect an exact teaching of a single button in the portable
computer art. The examiner could have offered examples (in
patents, printed publications, or from everyday experience) of
switches in other arts which do more than switch back and
forth between two conditions and which are actuated manually
and by closure of structure. The examiner's example of a
refrigerator door switch is a switch which turns the light off
and on, and is not as relevant a teaching as the "case-closed"
switch in the admitted prior art. The examiner might also
have shown examples of case-closed switches which were capable
of being actuated manually. In our opinion, the examiner's
mere conclusions that integrating several functions into one
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007