Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trane and Saegusa.
We make reference to the Answer for the Examiner’s reasoning and to
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims over Trane alone, the main
point of contention is whether the widened display of Trane, as a matter of
design choice, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a
widened I/O display area corresponding to the widened keyboard base.
Appellant argues that Trane does not teach any correspondence between the
widened keyboard base and the display device (Br. 5). Appellant further
asserts that even if Trane increases the “vertical dimension” of the lid to
match the increased vertical dimension of the keyboard, Trane does not use
this additional space for increasing the size of the display to create an
extended I/O display area (Reply Br. 7).
Trane, in Figures 1 and 2, shows a widened keyboard base to
accommodate phone 16 as the I/O device in the area widened beyond the
actual keyboard. As conceded by Appellant (Br. 7), the widened keyboard is
depicted as increased vertical dimension of keyboard base 12 which matches
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013