Appeal No. 96-4063
Application 08/389,087
Our review of appellants’ specification reveals no specific size, weight, or dimensions given for
the computing unit, other than to say that it is "portable" and capable of being "handheld." Thus, in
accordance with In re Morris and the other cases cited supra, we find that the collective teachings of
Robinson, Mitchell, and Rabinowitz as discussed supra would have taught or suggested the recited
"portable handheld computing unit" having a "communication interface" of independent claims 55 and
69, especially to the extent claimed.
In view of the foregoing, the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 55, 57 to 60, 62 to 69,
71 to 74, 76 to 83, and 85 to 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are sustained.
Section 103 Rejection of Claims 56, 61, 70, 75, and 84
Appellants argue that their "present invention provides advantages not [previously] achieved of
coupling a factory environment with the host computer and a portable handheld unit" (Brief, page 5),
and that an improvement is provided that "the user of the handheld unit is free to move about the factory
environment without concerns of being near to a non-handheld unit so that communication with the host
computer can be achieved" (Brief, pages 5 to 6). We agree, in as much as these features are claimed.
Because the advantages of hands-free operation of the handheld unit are possible only with the
disclosed infrared communications link, we will reverse only the decisions of the examiner rejecting
claims 56, 61, 70,75, and 84 which recite such an infrared communications link feature.
Claims 56, 61, 70, 75, and 84 on appeal specifically require that the communication interface
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007