Ex Parte THOMAS - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-0526                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/960,236                                                  


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant's invention relates to a method, apparatus, and              
          computer program product for providing user input to an                     
          application using a contact-sensitive surface.  An understanding            
          of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim           
          1, which is reproduced as follows:                                          
               1.  A method of providing user input to an application                 
               resident on a data processing system, the method                       
               comprising the steps of:                                               
                    contacting a contact-sensitive surface of a user                  
               input device with an implement configured to produce a                 
               contact point configuration including at least one                     
               contact point;                                                         
                    identifying the contact point configuration;                      
                    identifying a user input mode based on the                        
               identified contact point configuration; and                            
                    processing the at least one contact point in the                  
               application based on the identified user input mode.                   
               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
               Verrier et al. (Verrier)      5,475,401      Dec. 12, 1995             
               Claims 1-10 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Verrier.                                   
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,             








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007