Appeal No. 2005-1975 Page 16
Application No. 09/819,292
From the disclosure of Kumar, we find that although
different software applications can be used when the screen is in
different positions, in that the keyboard can be used in the
laptop or upright modes, but cannot be used in the slate or
tablet mode, we do not agree that display panel 12 is controlled
by different software applications related to a position of the
display panel; i.e., although different software applications are
used with different display positions, Kumar does not disclose
any mechanism for activating any software applications dependent
upon the position of the display. Nevertheless, as Haneda
discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, we affirm the
rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haneda in view of Kumar, even though we have
not relied upon Kumar. As claims 10, 12-14, 16, 26 and 27 fall
with claim 9 (brief, page 4), the rejection of claims 10, 12-14,
16, 26 and 27 is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 18, 19, 25,
30-32 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gouko in view of Kumar. We begin with claim 1. The examiner’s
position (answer, pages 5 and 6) is that Gouko does not teach
that the viewing areas are associated with different types of
software applications. To overcome this deficiency of Gouko, the
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007