Appeal No. 2005-1975 Page 20
Application No. 09/819,292
obviousness of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1, and claims 4-7
and 25, dependent therefrom, is therefore reversed.
We turn next to independent claim 18. We note at the outset
that claim 18, unlike claim 1, does not recite folding a first
module on top of the second module so that the first module is
visible and forms a second viewing area. Appellant asserts
(brief, page 9) that Kumar does not teach “a first viewing area
used with a first type of applications . . . the second viewing
area used with a second type of applications,” and that there is
no motivation to combine the teachings of the references. We
make reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the
teachings of Gouko. From our review of Gouko, we find that the
limitation argued by appellant is met because in Gouko, a first
type of application (3D game) can be viewed across all three
screens, whereas an image, other than from a video game can be
viewed on a single screen. Accordingly, we find that Gouko meets
or suggests all of the limitations of claim 18, and we need not
rely upon Kumar. From all of the above, the rejection of claim
18, and claims 19 and 30, dependent therefrom, is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 31. Appellant asserts (brief, page 9)
that “Kumar does not teach ‘a first type of applications is used
with the first display screen, and a second type of applications
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007