Appeal No. 1997-2790
Application No. 08/486,830
With respect to claims 27 and 40, appellants argue the interchangeability of a
plurality of electronic modules in the handle. (See brief at pages 6, 7, 10 and 11.) The
examiner relies upon Powell to teach this interchangeability function.
(See answer at page 5.) Even though Powell is not available as prior art, we find that it
does not teach nor would have suggested the interchangeability of electronic modules in
the handle. (See answer at page 5.) Powell merely teaches the use of the handle as the
location for some processing circuitry. (See Powell at figure 3.) The examiner maintains
that Koenck teaches the placement of the battery in the handle. (See answer at page 6).
Koenck in figure 14 and at column 16 does teach that an option is to place the
batteries/power supply in the handle, but is silent as to the interchangeability of both an
electronic module and a power supply. Furthermore, the examiner has not provided a
convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to place interchangeable modules in the handle of the
workslate. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 27 or claim 40, nor will we
sustain the rejection of claims 28-30 and 32-36 which depend from claim 27.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 25, 26, 31, 36, 37- 39 and 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 27- 30, 32-
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007