Appeal No. 1996-1387 Page 14
Application No. 08/110,269
28.) He adds, “Nakamura is directly contrary.” (Id.) The
examiner replies, “regarding ‘a tactile sensation during
dragging’, where can it be found in the claim. [sic]”
(Examiner’s Answer at 10.)
We cannot find that the combination of Majima in view of
Nakamura teaches or would have suggested the matte surface of
claim 7. The claim specifies in pertinent part a “screen upon
which an image may be projected, comprising ... matte surface
along which a user can drag a stylus.”
The examiner erred by not identifying the limitation in
the prior art. He admits, “Majima does not disclose the
screen which is comprised of [sic] matte surface along which a
user can drag a stylus ....” (Examiner’s Answer at 4.) For
its part, Nakamura teaches a graphics tablet with a surface 12
along which a user can drag a stylus 22. Col. 6, ll. 4-15.
Because the surface is made of glass, (Id. at ll. 8-9), it
would not necessarily be rough or granular. To the contrary,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected it to be
smooth, i.e., “as smooth as glass.” The addition of Ogino in
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007