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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007