Appeal No. 96-3563
Application No. 08/249,079
Appellants argue that the prior art references do not teach or suggest a touch
sensitive surface with virtual divisions and areas with isomorphic correspondence to the
geometrical disposition of display. We disagree with appellants. We agree with the
examiner’s basic proposition and application of the prior art concerning the use of plural
displays, substitution of a touch-sensitive surface based input device and use thereof for
varied input configurations. Many of the arguments advanced by appellants appear to be
directed to the environment of aircraft pilot interfacing and tracing the input without viewing
the input device, but these arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The examiner acknowledges that the prior art teaching of Akatsuka lacks disclosure
of the second operational mode concerning
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.
(See answer at pages 3-4.) We disagree with the examiner’s conclusion that the actuation
of the key of a keypad would correspond to “determining the displacement of the object
between two successive positions on said sensitive surface” and “computing a new value .
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007