Appeal No. 96-1614
Application No. 08/236,660
rejection is set forth on pages 5-6 of the answer. The
rejection identifies the time detecting circuit as the
difference between Fong and the invention of claim 22. The
examiner cites Wickstead as teaching this feature and the
rejection explains the
obviousness of adding this feature to Fong’s touch sensitive
input device.
Appellants argue that Wickstead offers “no description
or suggestion of the timing device claimed in claims 22-24,
where the time detecting means is used to operate a sound
producing device, as claimed in claims 22-23, or to initiate a
demonstration program, as claimed in claim 24" [brief, page
9]. The examiner responds that Fong teaches a sound producing
device as well as a demonstration mode. The examiner asserts
that it would have been obvious to activate Fong’s
demonstration mode after a predetermined time of no activity
as suggested by Wickstead [answer, pages 10-11]. Appellants
did not reply to this assertion of the examiner.
The scope of claim 22 only requires that we consider
the obviousness of producing a sound in the Fong device when
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007