Appeal No. 2002-1139
Application No. 09/236,960
because when the lid of Jambhekar is in the open position, there is no indication that an
extended keyboard is used, let alone a QWERTY keyboard. There is no keyboard at all
on the inside surface of Jambhekar’s lid and the “keyboard” on the surface portion of
the body portion is a touch screen. Thus, the inside surface of the lid and the surface
portion of the body portion do not, together, form a QWERTY keyboard as required by
instant claims 11 and 13. Moreover, with regard to claim 7, the combination of
Jambhekar and Mäkelä, improper anyway because there would have been no reason to
combine the single display orientation change circuitry of Jambhekar with the multiple
displays of Mäkelä, still would not provide for the claimed invention because there is no
evidence in Jambhekar that there is any “keyed in” data when the device is functioning
with the lid in the open position. From Figure 5 of Jambhekar, it would appear that in
the lid-open mode the information is written in with a stencil on the touch screen.
With regard to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we find it a bit
curious that the rejection relies on Jambhekar in view of Tsugane alone since claim 9
depends from claim 7 and the rejection of claim 7 relied, in part, on Mäkelä. In any
event, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
Tsugane is employed only for the teaching of a slidingly moveable lid (which is already
suggested by Jambhekar at column 5, lines 7-11) and Tsugane does not provide for the
deficiencies of Jambhekar noted supra with regard to claim 7.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007