Appeal 2007-1430
Application 10/407,696
1. A capacitive sensing device comprising:
a substantially transparent substrate; and
a first set of patterned conductive traces formed above said
substantially transparent substrate, each of said first set of patterned
conductive traces having a width such that said capacitive sensing device
does not have to be arranged with respect to an underlying image in order to
avoid deleterious obstruction of said underlying image by said first set of
patterned conductive traces, said underlying image is separate from said
capacitive sensing device, wherein said capacitive sensing device is separate
from active components used to comprise an information display device.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Binstead US 5,844,506 Dec. 01, 1998
Clancy US 5,952,998 Sep. 14, 1999
Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 13, 15 through 24, 26 through 28, 31
through 46, and 50 through 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Clancy.
Claims 6, 30, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Clancy.
Claims 14, 25, 29, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Clancy in view of Binstead.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 20, 2006) and
to Appellant's Brief (filed October 23, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed
February 1, 2007) for the respective arguments.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013