Appeal No. 1997-0413
Application No. 08/231,570
discloses a portable device which has a plurality of displays
and it is true that Wells discloses a portable device having a
miniature virtual display. But we find no suggestion to the
artisan to modify Wells in any way so as to provide for the
combination set forth in the instant claims where a portable
communications receiver has both a miniature virtual display
and a direct visual display. Wells would have no reason to
include a direct visual display, as claimed, because Wells is
interested in only viewing the virtual
image through a display window [e.g., window 58A in Figure 5].
Wells’ device would have no need for a direct visual display
as claimed.
As appellants state, at page 11 of the reply brief, the
examiner’s finding of obviousness “at the exact point of
novelty,” i.e., in providing for the plurality of displays, is
nothing more than judicial notice which requires a supporting
citation by the examiner if challenged, as the examiner has
been, by appellants. The examiner has provided no evidence of
any reason for providing a direct visual display in Wells.
The examiner’s reason for the combination of Wells and Lowell,
i.e., “to simultaneously present a different kind of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007