Appeal No. 2005-1975 Page 17
Application No. 09/819,292
examiner turns to Kumar for the same teachings as the examiner
relied upon in the rejection over Haneda in view of Kumar.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 9) that “Kumar does not teach
‘the first viewing area used with a first type of applications
and the second viewing area is associated with a second type of
applications.’” It is further argued that there is no motivation
to combine the teachings of Gouko and Kumar as suggested by the
examiner.
We observe at the outset that the language “associated with
a first type of applications” is very broad language that is met
by a software application that is displayed on a viewing area.
From our review of Gouko, we find that the reference is directed
to a compact personal computer having a plurality of display
panels (col. 1, lines 57-59). Several embodiments are disclosed.
As shown in figure 1, a primary display panel 2 is located on the
front of the body and sub-panels 3 and 4 are located adjacent the
main panel 2 as a secondary panel. A hinge 5 is used to adjust
the angle between the main panel and the sub-panels(col. 3, lines
23-30). In the embodiment of figure 2, the sub-panels are slid
to be contained in a space formed in the back of main panel 2.
Rack 7 and pinion 6 are used to slide the sub-panels (col. 3,
lines 40-45). The embodiment of figure 3 is similar to the
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007