Appeal No. 1998-0876 Application 08/269,703 in at least two ways. We do not find this limitation taught in Vassigh. Claim 3 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to make the touch screen display in Vassigh using a liquid crystal display as taught in Fujita. We agree. Appellants' arguments (Br11) fail to address the teachings of Fujita. However, Fujita does not cure the deficiencies of Vassigh with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is reversed. Claims 7-13 Independent claim 7 recites "a terminal having a housing" and "a data recording device which must be connected to the terminal in order for the data recording device to operate . . . including a housing different than the housing of the terminal." Appellants make the same argument as with claims 1 and 6 about Vassigh not having different housings. The Examiner relies on the previous discussion of Vassigh (EA6), which we found unpersuasive as to showing different housings. The Examiner applies Fukatsu to teach a bar code scanner, but - 8 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007