Appeal No. 2002-1140
Application No. 08/947,470
the APA, as set forth in the rejection, in having a single-piece input device with a touch
sensitive area over both a display screen and a border touch zone outside of the
display screen. We thus find appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
Appellants’ second argument is based on the view that there was no motivation
to combine the teachings of Deeran and Furukawa. As support, appellants postulate
that Deeran’s shell or case 20 provides necessary support for the touchscreen, and
adding a support plate as disclosed by Furukawa would be unnecessary or duplicative.
Appellants point to column 1, lines 48 through 52 of Deeran, wherein the reference
states that the case may be reinforced to an extent sufficient to withstand a high level of
impact. (Brief at 9-10.)
Deeran’s teaching that the case could be reinforced might fairly be viewed as
providing motivation for adding a support plate, as taught by Furukawa. Further, the
examiner notes (Answer at 8) that Deeran does not provide details as to the interior of
case 20. There must be something inherently supporting at least the border touch zone
outside of the display screen, and most likely a plate. Furukawa thus could also be
viewed not as supporting a combination of teachings, but as providing evidence of
inherent support for the touchscreen disclosed by Deeran -- i.e., showing an inherent
feature of Deeran. The inherent teaching of a prior art reference arises both in the
context of anticipation and obviousness. In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d
1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769,
775 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). When a reference is silent about an asserted inherent
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007