Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
the hand operated device of Russell would defeat the purpose of Motosyuku. (See
brief at page 10.) We disagree with appellants and find that the separate control
element would provide added flexibility as maintained by the examiner. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive. Appellants argue that Motosyuku would not have a wiring
harness. (See brief at page 10.) We disagree with appellants’ statement, whereas
some means of connecting the sensor to the computing device would have been
required or integration on the same medium within the single hand held unit. We find
no support in the text of Motosyuku for appellants’ argument/conclusion. Appellants
argue that the examiner relies upon improper hindsight in the combination. We
disagree with appellants as discussed above. Appellants argue that the combination
does not teach or suggest the use of “normal wearing apparel.” (See brief at page 11.)
We do not find this limitation in the language of dependent claim 5 nor would we find it
persuasive if expressly present in the claim. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive.
With respect to claims 3 and 25, the examiner maintains that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the
control element of Motosyuku with the feature of wearing a control element on a wrist
watch so the control element would not be easy to lose. (See answer at page 5.)
Appellants argue that the watch of Kobayashi is self contained and only controls the
scrolling of the stored information. (See brief at page 11.) Appellants argue that the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007