Appeal No. 2002-0604 Page 2
Application No. 09/240,926
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a portable electronic device. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 3
and 6, which appear in the appendix to the appellant's Brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Neumann 5,956,660 Sep. 21, 1999
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by
Neumann.
Claims 6, 8-14, 17-23, 26-28 and 32-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Neumann.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 10) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
1The statement of the rejection in the Answer erroneously included claims 29-31, which the
examiner previously had indicated contained allowable subject matter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007