Appeal No. 96-3563
Application No. 08/249,079
means for managing said sensitive surface according to a second operating mode
subsequent to said selecting operation using means for determining the
displacement of the object between two successive positions on said sensitive
surface,
means for computing a new value of the variable displayed on a previously selected
display element as a function of a current value of said variable and of the
determined displacement of said object on said sensitive surface, and
means for displaying said new value on said previously selected display element.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Auer et al. (Auer) 4,725,694 Feb. 16, 1988
Noto et al. (Noto) 4,885,580 Dec. 5, 1989
Akatsuka et al. (Akatsuka) 5,047,754 Sep. 10, 1991
Fukushima 5,295,062 Mar. 15, 1994
(filed Jan. 18, 1991)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being
unpatentable for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 1-
8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka in view of
Noto. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Akatsuka in view of Fukushima and Auer.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 27, mailed Jan. 17, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007