Appeal No. 1997-0412
Application No. 08/434,558
1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik [GMBH] v. American Hoist and Derrick [Co.],
730 F.2d 1452, 1457, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As
pointed out by appellant (Brief, page 21), "[t]he stylus
described in Rympalski does not 'generate positioning signals'
as claimed by applicant, as it is an independent, passive
component." Rympalski's stylus capacitively couples X-Y pairs
of adjacent transparent conductive regions but does not
generate any signal in the stylus. The examiner's reply
(Answer, page 5) refers to Rympalski's recitation in the
abstract that "the energization of the display pixels is
multiplexed with the read-out scanning" and concludes that
"[t]his real time read-out and energization superimpose
signals to get the desired result." However, the examiner's
statements concerning multiplexing and superimposition of
signals do not respond to appellant's assertion that
Rympalski's signals are not generated in the stylus. As the
examiner fails to point to any portion of Rympalski indicating
that the signals are generated in the stylus, we must reverse
the rejection of claims 18 and 20 over Rympalski.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007