Appeal No. 2003-1204
Application No. 09/592,535
not intersecting to each other, so that a space provided between the cover and the
base when the computer apparatus is in a closed position could be different with a
space provided between the cover and the base when the computer apparatus is in an
open position” is nothing more than impermissible hindsight since appellant’s
specification is the only evidence of record that teaches this. We find nothing in the
record, other than appellant’s own teaching, that would have suggested any reason for
the artisan to provide a space between the cover and base when the apparatus is in a
closed position that is different from the space provided therebetween when the
apparatus is in an open position. There is simply no evidence of record, other than
appellant’s disclosure, that would have pointed the artisan in any direction that would
have resulted in modifying Kawamoto so as to provide the claimed non-intersecting
axes of rotation. Thus, even if Wu taught such non-intersecting axes of rotation, and we
do not agree that WU does teach this, why would this fact, alone, have led the artisan to
modify Kawamoto in any way so as to provide for non-intersecting axes of rotation
therein? The examiner does not satisfactorily answer this question. As such, the
examiner has failed to provide a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007