Appeal No. 1998-1748
Application No. 08/758,295
U.S.C. 102(b) and rejecting claims 1, 9, 16 and 25 under 35
U.S.C. 103.
In particular, appellant takes issue with our
interpretation of the claimed shield being “readily
deformable.” Appellant contends that while they agree that
all materials are “deformable” to a degree, this does not mean
that all materials, such as that in the reference to Kirschner
are “readily deformable,” as claimed. Appellant points to
instant Figure 3 for an illustration of what is intended by
“readily deformable.” Figure 3 shows a shield being pushed in
by a falling coffee mug. Appellant’s position is that
“readily deformable” is clearly defined in claim 1 in stating
that the purpose of the shield being “readily deformable” is
to protect the display screen on which it is mounted.
We disagree. We find nothing in claim 1 which would
distinguish the shield being “readily deformable” from that
which is disclosed by Kirschner. While the primary purpose of
the shield in Kirschner is to reduce the amount of ambient
light impinging on the screen, the shield also clearly
protects the screen. Moreover, since the material of the
shield in Kirschner does deform to some degree and deforms
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007