Appeal No. 2004-1517
Application No. 09/765,172
that Figure 2 depicts an embodiment making use of four corner
switches, wherein the corner switches are disposed on the corners
of the frame surrounding the display. Appellant further disclose
that Figure 5 depicts an embodiment making use of corner
switches, wherein the corner switches are disposed on the corners
of the display itself.
Thus, we find that the language, "touching about periphery
of said display" found in Appellant's claims is directed in scope
to only the embodiment shown in Figure 5 and does not include the
embodiment shown in Figure 2. The specification makes clear that
the area of touching for the embodiment shown in Figure 5 is the
area of the display 104 whereas the area of touching in
embodiment shown in Figure 2 is described as touching the frame
104. Furthermore, Appellant's arguments also have disavowed or
disclaimed the scope of coverage of this language in their
argument stating that the claim requires a touching of the
display and not the frame of the display.
Having determined the scope of Appellant's claims, we find
that Brisebois fails to teach detecting a touching of the display
itself. Brisebois clearly teaches that the touching is detected
by the use of the active edge input device 120 which is
positioned adjacent to the display 110. See Brisebois, column 3,
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007