Appeal No. 1998-3364
Application No. 08/347,990
particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
demonstrated any motivation in the art for combining these
references, other than simply stating that "it would have been
obvious" to have done so. Appellant submits that it would not
have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fung, relating
to a power conservation apparatus for a computer system, with
the teachings of Windsor, relating to a pushless run bar for
operating heavy machinery.
On pages 5 and 6 of the brief, Appellant argues that
neither of the cited references teaches or suggests a hand-
held data entry unit, as clearly recited in independent claims
7, 18 and 23. Appellant points out that the invention
disclosed by Fung relates to a computer system, while the
invention disclosed by Windsor relates to heavy equipment and
machinery. Appellant argues that neither of the references
discloses or suggests a hand-held data entry unit.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007