Appeal No. 1998-2571
Application No. 08/515,383
display to the claimed first position adjacent to said top
surface, see
fig. 1B, and means to move the display to the claimed second
position spaced from the claimed top surface, see fig. 1A.
The latter claimed position is also met by Conway since Conway
has “[t]he ability to separate the keyboard halves from the
base and screen . . .” (Col. 3, lines 19 to 22). Thus, Conway
anticipates claim 33. However, with respect to claim 34, we
agree with Appellant that Conway does not disclose the claimed
scissors mechanism connecting the said display to the said
first keyboard section. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 34 over Conway. Claim 35 is
not argued separately and it falls with the parent claim 33.
Regarding claims 36 and 37, we are convinced by
Appellant’s arguments. We find that Conway does not show a
keyboard having the claimed sections which have the claimed
“first hinge” and the “second hinge.” This configuration
yields a structure corresponding to that shown in fig. 6 of
the specification. Conway does not disclose a structure of
this type, where multiple sections of the keyboard can have
different relative rotational movements. Therefore, we do not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007