Appeal No. 1997-1349
Application 08/520,629
In regard to the rejection of claims 34 through 36 and 45,
Appellants on pages 9 and 15 of the brief make arguments
similar to those made for claim 24 and add that Kunii does not
teach a pair of mounting elements for connecting the display to
the housing. We note that Kunii does teach a pair of mounting
elements by showing one element in a side view of the housing
and implicitly showing a second element at the other side of
the housing. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 34
through 36 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kunii and
Holmberg.
Turning to the rejection of claims 39, 40, and 57,
Appellants on page 16 of the brief argue that Cohen’s stylus is
not attached to different points corresponding to the operating
positions of the screen. However, Appellants on page 17 of the
brief acknowledge that Cohen does teach attachment of a stylus
at a single point. We fail to find any different “operating
positions” in these claims which merely recite a stylus
attached to a region adjacent the viewing surface.
Additionally, we find that Cohen in col. 3, lines 11 through 16
does teach that the stylus 13 is mounted on a mask area
adjacent the viewing surface 15. We agree with the Examiner
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007