Ex Parte CAPPS et al - Page 6




          Appeal No. 2002-1041                                                        
          Application 08/866,402                                                      

          Obviousness                                                                 
               Initially, it is noted that only claim 24 recites a touch              
          screen display, so Greanias is only relevant to claim 24.  The              
          "position sensing subsystem for providing signals indicating that           
          an area on the display has been selected by an operator" in                 
          claims 20, 26, and 31 reads on the ordinary computer subsystem              
          for sensing the position of a cursor or pointer which is clearly            
          present in Volk.  The analysis is limited to Volk except for the            
          rejection of claim 24.                                                      

               Claim 20                                                               
               The argued differences are altering the visual                         
          representation of the selected key "by enlarging said the visual            
          representation and by changing said visual representation to have           
          the appearance of a depressed key."                                         
               Appellants argue that the examiner relies on a general                 
          language in Volk suggesting that a programmer can enable any                
          change of appearance that the programmer chooses, but this does             
          not teach the precise changes in display that are claimed                   
          (Br10-11).  We agree that the rejection, as stated, seems to rely           
          on general language in Volk and is not persuasive for that                  
          reason.  Nevertheless, Volk does have specific relevant teachings           
          which cannot be ignored.  For example, the examiner did refer to            
          Fig. 8A in the rejection (Paper No. 13) and the final rejection             

                                        - 6 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007