Appeal No. 1997-2705
Application No. 08/341,429
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to each of the independent claims 1, 8, 19,
and 23, the Examiner, as the basis for the obvious rejection,
proposes to modify the hand-held computer structure disclosed
by Hanson by adding a teaching of a rotatable handle as taught
by Sato. The Examiner’s line of reasoning is expressed at
page 5 of the Answer as follows:
Since Hanson pivot their device for ergonomic
reason [sic, reasons], it would have been
obvious in view of Sato to add rotation to the
display/computer in Hanson et al to enhance
ergonomic considerations.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007