Appeal No. 2005-1975 Page 19
Application No. 09/819,292
From the disclosure of Gouko, we find that the three screens 2, 3
and 4 can be used with a first application, such as a 3D game.
However, although we find that any one of the other display
screens can be used with a different application, such as
displaying photos, there is nothing in Gouko that teaches or
suggests folding one screen on top of another, as the reference
teaches folding or sliding screens behind one another.
Turning to Kumar, although the reference teaches moving a
screen from a closed position to a laptop position, to a tablet
position where the screen covers the body of the computer and the
keyboard, because Gouko uses a biaxial hinge to move the sub-
panels up and down and left to right, we find no teaching or
suggestion to have replaced the biaxial hinges of Gouko with the
hinge mechanism 36 of Kumar because both mechanisms cannot be
used together, and replacing the biaxial hinge of Gouko with the
hinge pin 38 and groove 31 of Kumar would defeat the operation of
Gouko. Since the prior art does not suggest folding the screen
of first module on top of the second module, such that the first
module is visible and forms a second viewing area, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007