Appeal No. 2006-1554 Page 3
Application No. 10/369,819
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner determined that Hrehor
teaches a removable side panel member (207) of a casing of a computer (201) that
includes a push button (211) located on a bottom surface portion of the computer,
wherein, pushing the push button releases a side panel member from engagement
with the computer casing. Answer, p. 2 (citing Hrehor, col. 4, lines 39-44). As to
the claimed method steps, the examiner determined,
[A] general application of the prior art’s structure would
inherently encompass the steps as set forth, i.e.,
positioning the computer with a normally hidden bottom
surface portion thereof exposed [moving the computer
from a location where a bottom surface portion is
concealed by an adjacent wall or panel member or article
{box or piece of equipment, for example} so that the
bottom surface portion is now exposed to a user]; and
pushing a push button on the normally hidden bottom
surface portion [pushing the button, now exposed, to
release the side panel member from the casing].
(Answer, p. 3 (emphasis in original.))
The examiner further explained,
It is viewed that the functional and abstract limitation
“normally hidden” may be reasonably interpreted and
broadly applied depending upon the environment in
which the computer is situated or placed i.e., as presently
recited, the computer may be a functioning or non-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007