Appeal No. 2006-1554 Page 6
Application No. 10/369,819
specification further describes that “the bottom surface 948 is exposed to an
operator as by placing the computer on its side.” Specification, page 39, lines 1-2.
As such, we find that it would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of
the description in the specification, that “normally hidden” as used in the claims
means not visible when the computer is in its normal operating position. Because
Hrehor discloses that its push button (211) is clearly visible when the computer is
in its normal operating position (as shown in Figure 2), Hrehor does not disclose
the step of pushing a push button on the normally hidden bottom surface portion,
as recited in claim 1.
Second, we agree with the appellants that Hrehor does not inherently
disclose the step of positioning the computer with a normally hidden bottom
surface portion thereof exposed. Because Hrehor discloses a push button (211)
visible to the user when the computer system (201) is in its normal operating
position, there is no need when using the system of Hrehor to position the
computer with a normally hidden bottom surface exposed (e.g., on its side) to
remove a panel member. Further, we agree with the appellants that the use of the
computer system (201) of Hrehor as a non-functioning “parts computer” is not the
normal use of the computer. As such, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Because the rejections of dependent claims 2 and 3 rely
upon the underlying rejection of independent claim 1, we also decline to sustain
the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With regard to the rejection of claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner relied on the combination of Hrehor and Miyai. Claims 4-6 depend from
claim 1. We find that the combination of the teachings of Hrehor and Miyai does
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007