Appeal No. 1997-2790
Application No. 08/486,830
express language of claim 25 merely requires that “the shell further includes a handle
extending from the lower surface, the handle includes a grip portion spaced from and
disposed below a plane defined by the lower surface and configured to enable gripping
and support of the workslate unit with one hand during use.“ Clearly, Hacker discloses
(see Hacker at figure 1) the basic data entry and display device with electronics, and
Koenck discloses (see Koenck at figures 11 and 12) the combination of a display and
digitizer and that the handle “includes a grip portion spaced from and disposed below a
plane defined by the lower surface and configured to enable gripping and support of the
workslate unit with one hand during use” as set forth in the language of claim 25. (See
answer at pages 5-6.) The claim language is silent as to the physical orientation of the
handle beyond that it is “spaced from and disposed below a plane.” Clearly, Koenck
teaches the claimed orientation. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 25.
Similarly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 39 and 41 on the same basis.
With respect to claim 26, appellants argue that the prior art does not teach that the
handle is substantially parallel to the lower surface and relies on the argument with respect
to claim 25. We disagree with appellants. Bradbury clearly shows the orientation of a
handle on an input device which is substantially parallel to the lower surface as the
examiner states. (See answer at page 6.) We agree with the examiner.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007