Appeal No. 2001-0526 Page 4
Application No. 08/960,236
obviousness are misplaced as the sole ground of rejection applied
against all of the claims on appeal is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant states (brief, page 4) that the arguments focus on
the following recitations from claim 1:
contacting a contact-sensitive surface of a user
input device with an implement configured to produce a
contact point configuration;
identifying the contact point configuration[;]
identifying a user input mode based on the
identified contact point configuration;[emphasis
original.]
It is argued (brief, page 5) that tablet 22 of Verrier is not
sensitive to contact because the tablet detects a data stream
transmitted from the antenna 48 of the stylus 20 to the tablet.
It is further argued (id.) that Verrier does not disclose or
suggest identifying a contact point configuration because Verrier
does not produce contact point configurations and does not
disclose the ends of the stylus as having different
configurations.
The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that Verrier
discloses contacting a tablet of a digitizing display with a
stylus by pressing the tip of the stylus on the tablet where the
tablet is configured to produce pressure sensing data and has a
writing end and an erasing end. The examiner additionally (id.)
takes the position that the contact point configuration is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007