Appeal No. 96-3563
Application No. 08/249,079
. . as a function of a current value of said variable and of the determined displacement of
said object on said sensitive surface.” Appellants argue that the combination of teachings
does not teach the use of a second mode and use of displacement to compute a new
variable value. (See brief at page 12.) Clearly, the selection of a sub-portion of the
display as taught by Akatsuka would not require the use of “displacement.” The examiner
does not address these limitations further regarding the teachings of Noto. Nor has the
examiner addressed these limitations with respect to Auer and Fukushima. We do find
that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claims 1-9. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed. The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007