Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962, 154 USPQ 10, 12 (CCPA 1967),
(anticipation stated as being the "epitome of obviousness").
It is further established that “[l]ack of novelty is the
ultimate of obviousness.” See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,
794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
We find that Kunii in Fig. 1C provides a single piece
mounting assembly that allows the display to pivot about the
connecting hinge 6 which is fixed at the end point “b”. Thus,
without any modifications, Kunii teaches that the display opens
to a viewing angle to uncover the keyboard while it covers the
keyboard with its reverse surface in closed position.
Therefore, we conclude that Kunii anticipates and ultimately
renders obvious the pad computer as recited in claim 24.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24,
25, 31, 37, 38, 43, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kunii.
Turning to the rejection of claims 26 through 30 and 44,
Appellants on pages 14 and 15 argue identical points as
discussed above in relation with the mounting element recited
in claims 24 and 43. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claims 26 through 30 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kunii
and Takach.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007