Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
at page 3.) We agree with the examiner that Donahue teaches the placement of a
sensor for control of scrolling on some portion of the body which would be an article of
wearing apparel. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of
Motosyuku and Donahue to use head movements in a hands free mode for unimpaired
performance of a task. (See answer at page 3.) We agree with the examiner that it
would have been desirable to have a hands free mode of operation where the device of
Motosyuku could be set down and still control the scrolling as taught by Donahue.
Therefore, the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness and the
burden shifts to appellants to rebut this prima facie case.
Appellants argue that Donahue does not teach or suggest "mounting the sensor
on an item of normal wearing apparel." (See brief at page 4.) This argument is not
commensurate with the language used in independent claim 3. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that none of the control devices of
Donahue are items of normal wearing apparel that would be donned absent the control
function offered by the device. (See brief at page 4.) We disagree with appellants’
conclusion and appellants have provided no support for this conclusion. First,
appellants' conclusion relies on the use of a relative term "normal" which is not even
present in the language of claim 3 and second, relies upon an unsupported statement
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007