Appeal No. 1999-0891 Page 7
Application No. 08/676,484
at 1316 (citing In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d
1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Here, Morris’ computer already includes a speaker as
aforementioned. Incorporating Tsukizoe’s speakers into the
computer would have been redundant. Because incorporating the
additional speakers would have added bulk, moreover, it would
have been contrary to industry’s trend toward “miniaturization
of ... electronic information equipment ....” (Spec. at 2.)
Neither the addition of Frey nor Sherman cures the defect of
the proposed combination. Because there is no evidence that
incorporating the additional speakers into Morris’ computer
would
have been desirable, we are not persuaded that teachings from
the applied prior art would have suggested the limitations of
“one pair of speakers at both sides of the display element,
the speakers being arranged along a rotation axis of the
display element and being physically separated from each other
at a predetermined space;" “one pair of speakers provided on
the frame so that the speakers are separated by the display
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007