Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
that it would have been obvious to modify Kunii’s portable
computer with Cohen’s stylus since, as disclosed by Cohen in
col. 2, lines 2 through 6, attaching the stylus to the display
device provides a more efficient work area for the computer
operator. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 39, 40,
and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kunii and Cohen.
In regard to the rejection of claims 41 and 42, Appellants
on pages 18 and 19 repeat the argument that the nonslidable
movement of the mounting assembly and the reverse surface of
the display covering the keyboard as recited in the independent
base claim 24 are not taught by the combination of Kunii and
Nigro. For the reasons discussed above in regard to claim 24,
we find that claims 41 and 42 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Kunii and Nigro.
In view of the discussions above as related to the
independent claim 24 and each group of the claims, we find that
Kunii, Takach, Holmberg, Cohen, and Nigro, alone or in
combination, teach the claimed pad computer. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claims 24 through 31, 34 through 45,
56, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007