Appeal No. 2005-2666
Application No. 09/496,634
difference would otherwise have been obvious”).
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the evidence of
obviousness, on balance, outweighs the evidence of unobviousness
proffered by the appellants. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal under
Section 103. 2
2In the event of further prosecution, the examiner is
advised to consider whether the appellants’ admission at pages 1
through 3 of the specification alone, or together with the
teachings of Olson discussed supra, affect the patentability of
the claimed subject matter. The appellants appear to acknowledge
that the claimed touch screen structure, except for using high,
low, high refractive index layers as an anti-reflective coating,
is well known. See the specification, pages 1-2.
Conventionally, analog resistive touch screens use alternating
layers of transparent materials having low and high or high and
low refractive index layers as an anti-reflective coating, with
an outer layer or the entire layers having the claimed sheet
resistivity. See the specification, pages 2-3.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007