Appeal No. 2001-0526 Page 8
Application No. 08/960,236
erase and write modes based on which pressure signal is received.
We agree that the identification of the different pressure
signals identifies a user mode based upon the identified contact
point. However, the claim requires more. The claim requires
that the user input mode is identified based upon the identified
contact point configuration. Although the contact point
configuration is identified by the stylus geometry producing
measured values of the X-Y position and Z separation, the
configuration of the contact point cannot determine the user mode
as the contact point configurations are the same for both the
write and erase modes; i.e., because there is only one contact
point configuration and two different user input modes, the user
input mode cannot be identified by the contact point
configuration.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 13 similarly require identifying a user
input mode based on the identified contact point. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007