Appeal No. 2000-0339 Page 4
Application No. 08/911,933
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 22, and 23.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. The examiner asserts, "it would have been
obvious . . . to mount the display and input system of Mowers
in a free standing housing because the specific mounting of a
display and input system in a free standing housing is clearly
suggested by Petrich et al." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) He
further asserts that “the only advantage that is relied upon
in establishing the prima facie case of obviousness, [is] the
advantage of making a computer system ‘mobile’.” (Id. at 7.)
The appellants argue, "[t]he Examiner, however, has failed to
provide any reference teaching the desirability of making a
bowling scoring console mobile." (Appeal Br. at 10.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007