Appeal No. 1998-0665
Application 08/303,128
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.
L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551,
1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
As pointed out above, Redford, White and VoiceType
do not teach or suggest (or infer) the use of a handheld
peripheral with separate buttons for voice command spoken
words and voice data spoken words. Since there is no evidence
in the record that the prior art suggested the desirability of
such buttons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 28.
The remaining claims on appeal also contain the
above limitations discussed in regard to claim 28 and thereby,
we will not sustain the rejection as to these claims.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 28
through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007