Appeal No. 2006-0813
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,235
more convenient for the user of appellant’s computerized nursing station. Thus, one having
ordinary skill in the art addressing the problem of providing a more convenient means for
data entry into a computer, would look to the means used in the computer arts generally for
solutions. Connor’s removable keyboard addresses this problem.
We find that Connor and McLaughlin are analogous art.
Motivation to combine teachings
“In considering motivation in the obviousness analysis, the problem examined is not
the specific problem solved by the invention but the general problem that confronted the
inventor before the invention was made.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,78 USPQ2d 1329,
1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006). As we stated above, a problem faced by the Appellant was to make
the use of the cart and data entry more convenient to the user. The convenience to the
user of a removable keyboard that can be used at a varying distance from the rest of the
computer is readily apparent from Connor. In view of Connor’s teaching, one having
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to replace the fixed keyboard described in
McLaughlin with a removable wireless keyboard of the type disclosed by Conner to provide
added convenience to the user, that is, to accommodate individual user preferences. The
subject matter of Claim 1 would have been prima facie obvious.
Appellant also argues that Connor teaches that the keyboard must be used in close
proximity to and within sight of the monitor and therefore must be on the same surface or
surfaces located close together. Appeal brief, p. 8. Assuming, without deciding, this to be
a correct interpretation of Connor’s teachings, appellant has not directed us to a claim
limitation which would exclude use of a removable keyboard in “close proximity” to the
monitor. All Claim 1 requires is that the data entry device be “removable,” i.e., capable of
being removed from the cart, and include a transmitter. A removable keyboard and
transmitter are clearly taught by Connor.
The rejection of Claims 1-16 is affirmed.
Claims 17-34
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007