Appeal No. 1998-0929
Application 08/469,770
represents a touch panel) with a different holographic display
to control a different device as suggested by Sach.
We agree with the examiner’s conclusion. Claims 37
and 47 simply recite that the image generator may generate the
image for a different device to be controlled. Sach clearly
teaches that it was known in the use of touch panels to change
the panel image to permit the control of different devices
(subsystems). Since the holographic image of Dainippon is
intended to replace a conventional touch panel, the artisan
would have found it obvious to simulate all conventional type
of inputs permitted by touch panels. Since Sach teaches that
one conventional form of touch panel input is to display a
different image based on a given input, we agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for the artisan to
have the holographic image of Dainippon do the
same thing. Thus, the generation of different images for the
control of different devices is suggested by the collective
teachings of the applied prior art.
In conclusion, we have sustained the examiner’s prior
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007