Appeal No. 1999-1319
Application No. 08/495,390
as four electrodes (claim 3). See electrodes 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b of Tanahashi. The
electrodes are spaced relative to each other, as claimed. Tanahashi further discloses that
the input surface is adapted to be pushed, or pressed, which action causes resistive
surfaces of first and second input detecting members to contact each other. The examiner
contends that the pushing, or pressing, is performed by a pen, finger, or the like, and
appellants do not dispute this. The input surface 13 of Tanahashi, i.e., the “sensitive”
member, extends across the electrodes as required by independent claims 1 and 3.
The only dispute between appellants and the examiner concerns whether or not the
input surface 13 of Tanahashi comprises a “dielectric,” as claimed.
The examiner cites a dictionary definition of “dielectric” as “a nonconductor of
electricity.” Appellants’ position, as set forth at page 2 of the reply brief, is that Tanahashi
“does not specifically define member 13 as a dielectric and the examiner suggests that
member 13 is a nonconductor and therefore a dielectric. But every nonconductor is not
necessarily a dielectric.”
There is no dispute between appellants and the examiner that member 13 of
1
Tanahashi is a nonconductor. There is also no dispute with the dictionary definition,
offered by the examiner, of “dielectric” as “a nonconductor of electricity.” Accordingly, it
1We make no representation that Tanahashi’s member 13 is, in fact, a nonconductor; only that the
examiner alleges that this is so and that appellants do not dispute it.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007