Appeal No. 2003-0440
Application No. 09/430,162
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Vicard in view of Hong and Crump.
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vicard in view of Hong and Booth.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed November 19, 2002)1 for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 17, filed August 28, 2002) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 20,
filed January 16, 2003) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 21,
29, and 32.
The examiner (Answer, pages 3-4) relies on Vicard for a
split computer with multiple enclosures (see column 2, lines 3-
7), one including a processor and a second one including user
interface components (see column 6, lines 37-50). However, the
1 The Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 23, mailed April 22,
2003) has not been considered as 37 C.F.R. § 1.193(b)(1) states that a
Supplemental Examiner's Answer is not permitted unless the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences remands the application for such purpose. This case
was remanded for acknowledgment of entry and consideration of the Reply Brief
in accordance with the rule, not for a Supplemental Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007