Appeal No. 96-1200
Application 08/011,453
display unit" (Examiner's Answer, page 4). The examiner finds
that Norwood teaches a transparent digitizing tablet mounted
on a flat panel display screen and concludes that "[i]n view
of the fact that a transparent touch panel can be mounted atop
a flat display screen used as an input device, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
modified Brody and Caine with the features of the touch panel
as taught by Norwood, since they are directed to use [of] a
plat [sic, flat] panel display device" (Examiner's Answer,
page 5).
Claims 4, 12-13, 17, and 25-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brody, Caine, and
Norwood, further in view of Auer.
Claims 9-10 and 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Brody, Caine, and Norwood,
further in view of Row.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13) (pages
referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
position and to the Brief (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as
"Br__") for a statement of the appellants' position.
OPINION
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007