Appeal No. 2005-1975 Page 11
Application No. 09/819,292
second viewing area to interact with a second type of
applications configured to run with a computer system having the
second viewing area. The claim does not recite that the modules
are folded or unfolded to create the different viewing areas.
Nor does the claim recite that the modules are hinged or slid
together or that there is a switch in a hinge that causes the
second type of applications to be run. Nor does the claim
preclude the same application(s) from running on both the first
and second viewing areas. Thus, we find claim 9 to be very
broadly drafted. Turning to Haneda, we generally agree with the
examiner’s description of the reference. However, the examiner’s
broad reference to figures 1-19 (answer, page 4) and to col. 5-
col. 12 (answer, page 5) is not very helpful.
We note that in Haneda, the two screens can be visible at
the same time (figure 3) with both screens facing the user, or,
as shown in figure 4, the screens can be in the closed state. As
shown in figure 5, the screens are in the tablet state with one
display covering the other. In figure 6, the second display is
shown inverted so a user and a person sitting opposite the user
can simultaneously view the screens. Haneda further discloses a
lid body detecting section for detecting which of the states the
lid body is in. A control section controls the lighting state of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007