Appeal No. 1998-0874
Application 08/318,513
and Hube to be a hindsight reconstruction at best, appellants
have not argued the lack of motivation for combining these
references. Nevertheless, we agree with appellants’ limited
argument that Hube does not meet the recitation of a
continuous range of variation responsive to one or two size-
determining points on the coordinate input surface. There is
nothing in Hube which supports the examiner’s assertion that
the expanded areas 310' to 313' are variable in size over a
continuous range. Hube does not teach or suggest that the
value of “e” can be set or changed by the user. Therefore,
with respect to the limited feature argued by appellants, we
agree that the collective teachings of Todome, Okada and Hube
do not suggest the invention of claim 1 within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to the six rejections on appeal cited above,
each of them relies on Hube for meeting the feature just
discussed. Each of the other independent claims on appeal has
the feature of claim 1 just discussed or a similarly defined
feature. Therefore, Hube fails to support the rejection of
any of these claims. Although different claims are also
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007