Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831
Turning now to the rejection of the remaining claims over the
combination of Trane and Saegusa, Appellant argues that combining the
references, as proposed by the Examiner, would not have suggested the
claimed invention (Reply Br. 20). The Examiner apparently uses Saegusa
for suggesting modifications to the size and type of computer displays
(Answer 12). Saegusa provides for a display incorporating communication
functions of an I/O device (Saegusa, col. 2, ll. 51-53). While combining
Saegusa with Trane may be cumulative, we find the Examiner’s position to
be reasonable to suggest custom designing the display and the keyboard base
according to the functions and the positioning of the displayed information.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-14 over
Trane and Saegusa.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013