Appeal No. 2004-2043
Application 09/312,919
Bosley and Hitchcock would have suggested the interchangeability
of a touch screen and a display with attached keyboard. As noted
by the Examiner at page 8 of the answer, Hitchcock teaches that
the prior art uses a separate display and keyboard while
Hitchcock substitutes a touch screen for the same functionality.
At pages 3-6 of the reply brief, Appellants reiterated the
above arguments and additionally argue at page 6 that,
“wristwatches having a touchscreen input have only recently been
introduced.” Appellants cite to a 2003 publication and 2002
press release (Exhibit A) as evidence supporting this conclusion.
We find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive. We have
reviewed the cited references and we find that they in fact show
the introduction of “the world’s first Palm Powered watch” (press
release at lines 8-9) rather than the first touch screen watch.
We also direct Appellants’ attention to exemplary U.S. Patent
5,793,032 at column 5, lines 55-67, which teaches the use of a
touch screen wristwatch as early as February 1, 1995. We also
note at this point that although Appellants’ application claims
priority back to July 30, 1993, claims including the soft key
feature are only entitled to the June 28, 1999 filing date as
none of the prior applications in Appellants’ continuity claim
included this touch screen feature.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007