Appeal No. 1999-0891 Page 6
Application No. 08/676,484
open position ....” P. 3, ll. 26-32. “[C]omputer 10 also
includes a microphone and a speaker such as pop-up speaker
phone 50 ....” P. 5, ll. 1-3. The examiner admits, “Morris
has failed to disclose having a pair of speakers at both sides
of the display.” (Final Rejection at 3.) For its part,
Tsukizoe teaches “two speakers placed at the left and right
sides of an image display device such as CRT and stereo sound
output device that outputs sound from these speakers ....”
Tsukizoe Translation, p. 3.
The examiner fails to identify a sufficient suggestion to
combine the teachings of the references. “[I]dentification in
the prior art of each individual part claimed is insufficient
to defeat patentability of the whole claimed invention. In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d
1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Rather, to establish
obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed
in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or
teaching of the desirability of making the specific
combination that was made by the applicants.” Id., 55 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007