Appeal No. 2001-2293
Application No. 08/984,602
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection relying on the references of
Iura and Siio is erroneous because, inter alia, there is no evidence of a teaching or
suggestion for making the proposed combination. (Reply Brief at 3-4.)
The rejection submits that “Iura fails to particularly disclose the source is emitting
a modulated light “ as specified in the independent claims. (Final Rejection at 3.) The
rejection concludes that it would have been obvious to “modify the modulated light (36)
of Siio into the light source (801) of the pen (603) of Iura for the same purpose of
emitting light modulated different from a frequency of the frames so that a camera of
Iura is easily to detect [sic] the modulated light and the video images.” (Id. at 3-4.)
“Doing so would allow the light source emitting the modulated light to prevent
interference caused by light from other sources.” (Id. at 4.)
Siio discloses a wireless mouse 16 (Fig. 3A) having an LED 36 actuated by an
operation button 34. According to the reference, the light can “transmit a specific ID.”
The ID is shown as element D4 in Figure 3B. Col. 3, ll. 51-67. In the embodiment
depicted in Figure 3A, terminal 28 has a “light-receiving part” 40 for reception of light
from mouse 16. Col. 4, ll. 1-6. The system uses the mouse ID for bringing up particular
objects, on monitor 42, that are linked to a specific ID. Col. 4, l. 49 - col. 5, l. 7.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007