Appeal No. 2002-1139
Application No. 09/236,960
the lid and shown in Figure 3 are not keys at all. So, while Jambhekar might be
considered to have, at best, a first plurality of keys on the surface portion of the body
portion (if the touch screen shown in Figure 3 is considered to be such a plurality of
data input keys), and a third plurality of data input keys on an outer surface of the lid
(keyboard 125), Jambhekar can be considered, in no way, to show the claimed second
plurality of data input keys on an inner surface of the lid.
Uchikura clearly discloses a first (5), second (4) and third (3) plurality of data
input keys in an electronic apparatus, as claimed. Uchikura also discloses a display
which is visible to the user when the lid 2 is in an open and closed position. In fact, with
regard to claims 1 and 10, the only claimed element not taught by Uchikura is the
display control means for displaying information on the display with a first orientation
when the lid is in the open position and with a second orientation at right angles to the
first orientation, when the lid is in the closed position. This feature is clearly taught by
Jambhekar.
Thus, the issue is whether it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
of Jambhekar and Uchikura in such a manner as to arrive at the instant claimed subject
matter. The examiner contends that it would have been obvious to modify Jambhekar’s
device with the teachings of Uchikura in order to make it more convenient to type
messages using an alphanumeric keyboard rather than a telephone keyboard.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007