Appeal No. 1998-1331
Application No. 08/357,626
to features of said image in response to said correction data received from said
display processor.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Mussler et al. (Mussler) 4,710,758 Dec. 1, 1987
Rysavy et al. (Rysavy) 4,929,935 May 29, 1990
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rysavy in view of Mussler.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 8) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 15) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 14) and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 16) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
The examiner’s statement of the rejection is set forth on pages 4 to 7 of the Answer.
The references of Rysavy and Mussler are provided as evidence of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter. “Mussler is provided to also teach automatic calibration.”
(Answer, page 5.)
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 6-7) that the references fail to show or suggest the
invention including the limitations set forth in the language of claim 1: “means for
communicating correction data to said touch processor indicative of said different position
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007