Appeal No. 2004-1025
Application No. 09/572,674
unit or device. To cure this shortcoming in Koizumi, the
examiner turns to Sauer.
Sauer discloses a mouthstick, a mouth-held device for use by
individuals having limited or no use of their hands. The
mouthstick 10 comprises a mouthpiece 11, a shaft 13 extending
from the mouthpiece and a functional implement on the distal end
of the shaft. The implement may be, for example, a soft rubbery
tip 14 (which can be used to turn pages), a pen, a pencil, a
brush or any similar device.
In proposing to combine Koizumi and Sauer to reject claims 1
and 9, the examiner submits that
Clearly, it would have been advantageous for a disabled
user to have a single device capable of performing
manual tasks and for operating a computer. In fact, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to combine the
relevant teachings of Sauer and Koizumi so that users
could conveniently perform routine tasks and input
computer data without having to constantly switch
devices [answer, page 4].
In response to the appellant’s argument that Koizumi and
Sauer would not have suggested this combination, the examiner
(see page 7 in the answer) cites In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5
USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21
USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) for the principle that motivation to
combine references need not be found explicitly in the references
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007