Appeal No. 1997-2790
Application No. 08/486,830
Appellants have not provided a separate convincing argument as to the patentability of
claim 26. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 26.
With respect to claim 31, appellants merely repeat the language of the claim and
rely on the argument provided against claim 25. This argument is not persuasive. Clearly,
de la Huerga teaches and would have suggested the use of handles/supports with distal
ends connected to the lower surface. (See answer at page 5.) We agree with the
examiner.
With respect to claims 36 and 37, appellants argue that the prior art does not teach
or suggest that the display screen is at least 70% of the visible surface (see brief at page
8) and the screen is at least 3 inches by 5 inches. The examiner maintains that the “visible
surface area of the interactive display screen is considered as a matter of design choice
since it does not solve any stated problem or have any unexpected results.” (See answer
at page 7.) We agree with the examiner.
With respect to claim 38, appellants rely upon the argument with respect to claim 25
and merely repeats the language of the claim. This argument is not persuasive as
discussed above with respect to Koenck.
CLAIMS 27- 30, 32- 36 and 40
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007