Appeal No. 2003-1519 3
Application No. 09/109,884
Claims 5, 7, 24 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yeager in view of Plesinger and further in view of Kim.
Claims 8 through 16, 20 through 22 and 27 through 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Yeager in view of Plesinger and further in
view of Kim.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner and agree with the appellant that the rejections of the claims under Section
103(a) are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse each of the rejections
The Rejection under Section 103(a)
It is the examiner’s position that, “[i]t would have been obvious to [sic, the person]
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display
apparatus of Yeager with the metal case (or bezel) taught by Plesinger for the purpose of
having better EMI shielding and heat dissipation.” See Answer, page 4. We disagree.
The conclusion of the examiner is based upon numerous findings of fact which form
the basis for the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness supra. We find however, that many
of the findings are in themselves either erroneous or misidentify the elements found in the
references. Thus, 28 is found to be a display apparatus in the Answer. See Answer, page
3. Yeager, however, identifies 28 as “a hinged top or cover.” See column 2, lines 37-
38, 44 and 50. The Answer identifies 64 as constituting a metal frame. See Answer,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007