Appeal No. 2002-1995 Application No. 09/071,488 The examiner is not suggesting that the lack of teaching of the use of a single hand to hold the device in Michel actually provides such a teaching. Rather, the examiner is urging, and we agree, that the artisan viewing the teachings of Michel would have found it obvious to hold device 32 in one hand and simultaneously operate buttons on one side of the device with that single hand. Appellants argue that Michel is silent as to whether an individual can grasp and navigate the prior art device with a single hand (principal brief-page 7), but it is our opinion that Michel clearly implies, from the drawing in Figure 5b, that the device may be operated with one hand if only the buttons on one side of device 32 are to be operated. Appellants allege that Michel actually “teaches away” from the claimed invention (principal brief-page 7). We disagree. Michel discloses nowhere that only two hands must be used and that a single hand could not hold and operate the device. If the reference did have such a disclosure, this might be construed as a teaching away. However, Michel contains no such disclosure. Appellants argue that operating the device of Michel with a single hand would change the principle of operation of the device (principal brief-page 7). We disagree. It is not understood how -7–Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007