Appeal No. 96-0196
Application 08/158,337
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure in this application describes
the claimed invention in a manner which complies with the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view
that the collective evidence relied upon would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness
of the invention as set forth in claims 2-21. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 5 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The rejection is based on
the written description requirement of Section 112 asserting
that the specification, as originally filed, does not provide
support for the invention as now claimed. Specifically, the
rejection states that “[t]here is no disclosure teaching that
the touch pad includes means for providing a control signal
continuously alterable in accordance with portions of the
touch pad being touched” [answer, page 4]. The examiner
reasons that the control signal could be discretely alterable
instead of continuously alterable [answer, page 12].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007