Appeal No. 2005-1785
Application No. 10/164,853
interface on each of its sides (col. 4, lines 39-52),1 and Kfoury
does not disclose illuminating only one outer user interface in
response to relative movement of the housings.
The examiner argues that only one of Kfoury’s four user
interfaces can be active at certain times, based on the movement
of the interfaces in relation to each other (answer, page 6).
The examiner, however, does not cite any portion of Kfoury which
discloses only one active user interface.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.2
1 Kfoury does not disclose that the lower housing portion in figure 12
has no user interface on its bottom side.
2 The examiner does not rely upon Vance for any disclosure that remedies
the above-discussed deficiency in Kfoury.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007