Appeal No. 1999-0564
Application 08/398,834
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 2,
the examiner cites Bowen as teaching a computer in which two
separate sets of keys [80,86] are spaced apart with a touch
sensitive display [84] disposed therebetween. The examiner
cites IBM as teaching a touch sensitive input pad in which two
different pressures are detected for moving a cursor and for
selecting a function, respectively. The examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify the touch
sensitive display of Bowen to be responsive to two different
pressures as taught by IBM [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellant’s only argument is that the modification
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007