Appeal No. 2001-1644
Application No. 08/951,149
disfavor on per se rules of obviousness. See, e.g., In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572, 37
USPQ2d 1127, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[R]eliance on per se rules of obviousness is
legally incorrect and must cease.”).
Moreover, we agree with appellants that the record establishes (as explained in
the specification) that repositioning of the indicator provides a useful result different
from prior art positioning -- i.e., the chosen positioning facilitates viewing of the indicator
from different orientations with respect to the handset -- and thus represents more than
mere arbitrary rearrangement of parts.
Instant claim 1 requires a light guide positioned on the hinge element of a first
housing portion. Claim 11 requires a first housing with a first spaced knuckle and a light
guide positioned in an opening of the first spaced knuckle. Claim 15 requires a first
housing with a first spaced knuckle and a light guide positioned in the opening of the
first spaced knuckle. Since the rejection fails to show disclosure or suggestion of a
communication device having a light guide in any of the above-noted positions, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Roadmap.
As an aside, we note that claim 15 recites that the light guide is “viewable from
said front side of the communication device,” which is consistent with the specification
(e.g., at 2, ll. 17-20). However, claim 1 has been amended during prosecution, and
claim 11 has been added, such that the claims recite that the light guide is “viewable
from the front portion” (i.e., viewable from front portion 110 of housing 108; see spec. at
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007