Appeal No. 2002-1041
Application 08/866,402
Claim 23 recites that two types of key identifying signals
are provided to distinguish between which portion of a key area
has been touched.
We do not find where the examiner addresses this limitation.
We have reviewed Volk and find no teaching or suggestion of this
limitation. That fact that Volk could be modified to produce the
claimed subject matter still requires a suggestion or motivation.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.")( citing In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The
rejection of claim 23, and its dependent claim 25, is reversed.
Claim 24
Claim 24 recites that the position sensing subsystem
comprises a touch sensitive overlay on the display.
The examiner has applied Greanias to show a touch sensitive
overlay (FR3).
Appellants argue that the distinction remains unaddressed by
the examiner (Br12).
The examiner has clearly addressed the touch sensitive
overlay using the Greanias patent, albeit in connection with
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007