Appeal No. 2002-1995 Application No. 09/071,488 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 146-147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192 (a)]. We have reviewed the evidence in the case, including the arguments of appellants and the examiner and we conclude that, unlike our decision in Application Serial No. 09/071,489, the examiner in the instant case has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter. Similar to the issues in the previous case, appellants and the examiner argue the “single hand” limitation. While appellants argue that the device in Michel is not operable with a single hand wherein a user simultaneously grasps and operates a user input interface, the examiner urges that Michel shows a user grasping the housing of the device in his right hand in Figure 8 (see answer-page 3). While Figure 8 of Michel appears to show a user employing both hands, this would also entail the use of a single hand. -5–Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007