Appeal No. 96-1614
Application No. 08/236,660
have “perforated portions” in the manner intended by
appellants’ disclosed invention, we agree with the examiner
that the surface 301 in Fong’s device is every bit as much of
a perforated portion as appellant’s area 10b is. Since
appellants have disclosed that area 10b is a perforated
portion, we must conclude that Fong’s Figure 13 also discloses
a perforated portion. As noted above, appellants have offered
no reply to this position of the examiner. Since we agree
with the examiner’s position and since appellants’ brief
offers no convincing arguments of error in the examiner’s
position, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 37-46.
We now consider the rejection of claims 3-6, 8-18, 35
and 36 as unpatentable over the teachings of Fong in view of
Popowski. We will consider this rejection with respect to
claim 35 as representative of all the claims within this
group. This rejection is set forth on pages 4-5 of the
answer. The rejection identifies the color selecting buttons
as the difference between Fong and the invention of claim 35.
The examiner cites Popowski as teaching this feature and the
rejection explains the obviousness of adding this feature to
Fong’s touch sensitive input device.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007