Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
attached to any ordinary article of wearing apparel with only minimal alteration in the
mode/method of attachment thereto. Appellants argue that the goggles of Donahue do
not serve to correct vision and do not allow vision during normal human function. (See
brief at page 9.) We find no limitation that the eyeglasses have corrective lenses
therein, and we find that eyeglasses are merely glasses for the eyes. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that Donahue does not teach or suggest
eyeglasses. As discussed above, we find that Donahue would have fairly suggested
the use of a control element on eyeglasses. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 24.
With respect to claim 26, appellants argue that Donahue does not teach or
suggest the use of the display and the computing device integrated into a hand held
device. We find that Motosyuku expressly teaches the incorporation of the display and
the computing device into a handhold device. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 26.
With respect to claim 5, the examiner relies upon the teachings of Russell to
teach the use of electromagnetic radiation as a mean to have a cordless input of data
to a system. (See answer at page 5.) We agree with the examiner that a cordless
input device would have been quite desirable to skilled artisans. Appellants argue that
Russell does not cure the deficiency of the original combination. This argument is not
persuasive since we do not find the base combination deficient. Appellants argue that
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007