Appeal No. 1998-0073
Application 08/273,813
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 1
the details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, after careful review of the evidence
before us, that claims 2 through 4 are properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. We reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to claims 1, 5 through 9, 11, 12, 15 through 17, 24,
and 25. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 16, 24,
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellant argues on page 10 of
the brief that neither Hsieh nor Chadima teaches Appellant’s
inventive concept which is directed to a clam shell portable
computer with a malleable sealant between the top and the
bottom housing as defined in independent claims 1, 3, and 24.
Appellant on pages 11, 12, and 15 points out that Chadima’s
top and bottom housings remain closed with the sealant
permanently installed in between during the operation of the
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on February 28, 1997.
Appellant also filed a reply brief on June 16, 1997. On July
3, 1997, the Examiner mailed a communication stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007