Appeal No. 2006-1766
Application No. 09/773,090
Kashiwagi), not a “second screen,” as claimed.
We agree with appellants’ observation, at pages 4-5 of the
reply brief:
Both of the Karidis…and Kashiwagi…patents are directed
toward apparatuses that enable a user to provide input in
written form, for insertion into a document. In the
Karidis…patent, the user provides input via markable surface
150. In the Kashiwagi…patent, the user provides input via
tablet 66. Both of the Karidis…and Kashiwagi…patents fully
provide for the receipt and processing of input from the
user. Neither of the Karidis…patent nor the Kashiwagi…
patent have any apparent need for another screen upon which
text may be displayed, with which the user can interact.
Thus, neither of the Karidis…patent nor the Kashiwagi…patent
provides any motive for a second screen upon which text may
be displayed, and a second manual actuator by means of which
a user is able to interact with text displayed on the second
screen, as recited in claim 1 (emphasis in the original).
Thus, appellants conclude that there would have been no
motive for the cited combination, and we agree.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Since Robotham does not provide for the deficiencies of the
two primary references, Robotham being relied on for a specific
type of connection, we also will not sustain the rejection of
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007