Appeal 2007-1430
Application 10/407,696
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 13, 15 through 24, 26 through
28, 31, 33 through 46, 50, and 52, reverse the anticipation of claims 8, 32,
and 51, affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 14, 25, 29, 47, and 48,
and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 30, and 49. We also will
enter a new ground of rejection of claims 6, 8, 30, 32, 49, and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Clancy in view of Binstead.
OPINION
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, that the patterned
conductive traces "hav[e] 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." Independent claims
15 and 34 recite similar limitations.
The Examiner (Answer 3) rejects claims 1 through 5, 7 through 13, 15
through 24, 26 through 28, 31 through 46, and 50 through 52 as being
anticipated by Clancy. The Examiner asserts (Answer 3) that the widths of
the Clancy's conductive traces are formed such that the conductive traces do
not have to be arranged with respect to the underlying image to avoid
obstruction of the image by the traces, as required by the independent
claims. Appellant contends (Br. 8-9 and Reply Br. 2-3) that Clancy specifies
"through appropriate arrangement of the traces … images may be projected
by the LCD display 20 … for viewing by the user." Thus, Appellant
contends (Br. 8) that Clancy requires a particular arrangement of the traces
with respect to the underlying image to prevent obstruction of the image.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013