Appeal No. 1998-0929
Application 08/469,770
66 stand as one separate group, claims 38 and 48 stand as a
second separate group, claims 52 and 60 stand as a third
separate group, and claims 70-74 stand as a fourth separate
group [brief, pages 10-11]. We consider the rejection of
claim 30 as the representative claim for the large single
group.
With respect to independent claim 30, the examiner
cites Dainippon as a teaching of replacing a touch control
panel with a holographic image for inputting data into a
device. Ward is cited to teach the conventionality of
replacing a conventional electromechanical input device with a
touch panel. The examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to replace the holographic image of Dainippon with a
holographic image of a keyboard because Ward suggests
replacing a keyboard with a touch panel and Dainippon teaches
replacing a touch panel with a holographic image [answer,
pages 4-5].
Appellant makes the following arguments: 1) appellant
argues that there is no way of knowing what is disclosed or
even contemplated in Dainippon without engaging in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007