Appeal No. 2005-1975 Page 6
Application No. 09/819,292
breadth of the claims.” In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d
1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The examiner’s position (answer, page 4) is that “[t]here is
no description or drawings in the specification of means for
activating the second type of applications when using the second
viewing area.” Appellant asserts (brief, page 5) that the first
type and second type of applications may be activated based on
whether the multiple modes of the foldable mobile computing
device are folded or unfolded. Specifically, it is argued (id.)
that when the multiple modules are unfolded such that their
display screens are adjacent to one another, the mobile computing
device may run applications such as WordŽ, typically associated
with a laptop. When multiple modules are folded on top of one
another, the mobile computing device may execute applications
such as a PDA, typically associated with a hand-held computing
device.
From our review of the entire record, we note that in making
the enablement rejection, the examiner has not addressed any of
the Wands factors, and has not made any assertion that
experimentation, let alone an undue amount of experimentation,
would have been necessary for an artisan to make and use the
invention. From our review of the disclosure, we find that, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007