Appeal No. 1998-0943
Application No. 08/300,500
provided by the location of the “touch” on the screen. We
further point to the example provided at column 8, lines 10-20
in McCain in which the display of operating parameters of a
“touched” part of displayed diagram of a process would serve
as an acknowledgment to the user of the location (position) of
the “touch”.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as being
anticipated by the disclosure of McCain.3
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of independent claims 6 and 11 as being
anticipated by McCain, we sustain the rejection of these
claims as well. The limitations of claims 6 and 11 are
directed to the wireless transfer of positional information
from the hand-held interface device to the host computer with
3The use of a dictionary definition of a standard
reference work cited to support a fact judicially noticed is
not considered a new ground of rejection. In re Boon, 439 F.
2d 724, 7227, 169 USPQ 231, 234 (CCPA 1971). With respect to
the Weiser publication discussed by the Examiner in the
“Response to argument” portion of the Answer, we, along with
Appellants, are puzzled as to the relevance attributed to this
reference by the Examiner. Since we find, however, that
McCain discloses all of the limitations of appealed claim 1,
any discussion of the merits of Weiser is moot.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007