Appeal No. 2004-0995
Application No. 09/984,546
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Banerjee et al. (Banerjee) 6,292,181 Sep. 18, 2001
(filing date: Sep. 2, 1994)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Banerjee.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer as embellished upon here, we sustain the rejection of
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In affirming the noted rejection, we make special reference
to Banerjee’s figures 1a, 1b; figures 3a through 3c and figure
4 in addition to the following textual discussions in Banerjee’s
disclosure: the discussion of the structure of the mobile data
processing device MDPD/mobile user interface device in the
summary of the invention at column 2, lines 28 through 40 and
53 through 61 and the corresponding functional operational
description at column 2, lines 41 through 52; column 4, lines 9-
19; stylus operation at column 4, lines 49-53; column 5, lines
12 through 20; column 6, lines 34 through 50; the discussion of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007