Appeal No. 2001-0004
Application No. 08/961,580
Appellants argue (brief, page 8) that:
Ma does not either explicitly or implicitly
disclose, teach, or suggest that the “docking port
. . . is formed on same said first surface . . .
as said keyboard.” In fact, Ma discloses that the
docking port on the mobile computing device is
formed on the rear surface and not the “surface of
said housing as said keyboard” as Applicant is
[sic, Applicants are] claiming. Thus Ma teaches
away from Applicant’s [sic, Applicants’] invention
and it is improper to combine Ma with the teaching
of Lehman [sic, Leman].
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Ma discloses
terminals 31 on a side edge of portable computer 3, and, as
indicated supra, Leman presumably locates a docking port on
the back side of the notepad computer. Neither the back
side of Leman nor the side edge of Ma has a keyboard located
thereon. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 3 and 7 is reversed because the applied references
neither teach nor would they have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art to locate the docking port and the
keyboard on the same surface of a mobile computing device.
The obviousness rejection of claims 4 through 6 and
8 through 15 is likewise reversed because the teachings of
Ditzik do not cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings
of Leman and Ma.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007