Appeal No. 1997-2705
Application No. 08/341,429
issue of the obviousness of this feature has not been
addressed.
We have also reviewed the disclosures of Learn and
Gombrich which, as indicated earlier, were applied to the
proposed combination of Hanson and Sato to address the display
screen structure feature of the appealed claims. We find
nothing in the
disclosures of Learn and Gombrich related to rotatable handle-
housing combinations which would cure the innate deficiencies
of Hanson and Sato.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view, that,
since all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not
taught or suggested by the prior art, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. We further
agree with Appellants (Brief, page 14) that even assuming
arguendo that proper motivation existed for the combination
suggested by the Examiner, the resulting structure would not
meet the requirements of the claims on appeal. Accordingly,
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 19,
and 23, as well as claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 16-17, 20-21, and 24
dependent thereon,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007