Appeal No. 96-1614
Application No. 08/236,660
rejection explains the obviousness of adding this feature to
Fong’s touch sensitive input device.
Appellants argue that in Smalligan, “[t]here is no
recess provided, for selectively receiving and holding the
stencils in place, nor is there any suggestion that the pencil
or pen writing device of Smalligan may have application to an
electronic picture drawing device as in the present invention”
[brief, page 9]. The examiner responds that it would have
been obvious to have placed a tracing sheet on the top of the
drawing area in Fong’s device [answer, page 11]. There is no
discussion by the examiner on the manner in which the stencils
are mounted in the combined device of Fong and Smalligan.
We will not sustain this rejection because the
examiner has failed to properly identify the difference
between the claimed invention and the teachings of the
references. Each of claims 19, 20 and 21 recites in some form
the manner in which a tracing sheet is mounted onto the
tablet. The examiner never addresses this aspect of the
claimed invention. The rejection simply addresses the
obviousness of using tracing sheets with the Fong device but
does not consider the manner in which the tracing sheets would
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007