Appeal No. 1998-0876
Application 08/269,703
display 22 because the display 22 is an integral part of the
terminal device housing. While figure 1 seems to show a
display placed on the terminal device, that is, a display
housing placed on a terminal device housing, there is no
description of figure 1 having two separate housings. It
would be improper to resort to speculation in our fact
finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
178 (CCPA 1967) (it is improper to resort to speculation or
unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis for a rejection). The Examiner could have easily found
a reference to show separate housings for the display/keyboard
and processor but elected to rely on a strained interpretation
of Vassigh with which we do not agree. Thus, the Examiner
errs in finding claims 1 and 6 to be anticipated. The
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-6 is reversed.
Although we have reversed the rejection of claims 4-6, we
nevertheless comment on other errors in the Examiner's
rejection. Claim 4 recites a "card reader within the housing
of the first portion." The Examiner finds that Vassigh
discloses a card reader 72, figure 16, coupled to the
processor (FR3). Appellants argue that the card reader in
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007